Evidence For And Against Evolution

[tas8831]

View attachment 36679

Sure, but hadn't you heard - fossils are just carved rocks...

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure, but hadn't you heard - fossils are just carved rocks...

. . . or plastic composite skeletons.

 

[YoursTrue]

Current studies in genetics reveal a very complex way that the genetics can be changed as well as the studies of epigenetics. Clearly Behe underestimates what we no know in genetics.

Speaking of current studies, here's an interesting look at what is termed as the Evolutionary Game explained by Stanford U: Evolutionary Game Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
It's long and interesting in both phraseology and aspects. The exciting game scientists play...

 

[YoursTrue]

Because one can dismiss any claim using that type of circular logic.

For example by that logic, you can't say that something like a rock is billions of years old, unless you prove a priory that the earth is billions of years old. So any argument for an old earth can be dismissed by that circular logic.

Like I say, you might like to look at the explanation of the great and obviously engaging game of evolutionary theory scientists are said to engage in.
Evolutionary Game Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow, you have just how irrational you are.

What I had asserted and asked in my reply, is a valid position.

There was absolutely nothing circular about my post.

God cannot be observed by everyone, cannot be tested by everyone, cannot be measured by everyone...then there is no evidence for God. And if there is no evidence for God, then accepting in spite of lack of evidence, is nothing more than faith-based belief.

What you don't seem to understand that you'd need evidence for the CAUSE as much as you'd need evidence for the EFFECT.

Without evidence for the CAUSE existing, then you cannot verify the CAUSE was responsible for the EFFECT.

That's logical. And it is simple as logic goes.

Only creationists would have problem with this simple logic, because they know they don't have evidence for God.

Since God is God and we are not, neither are bones, or science, the above does fit into what is termed the Game of the Theory of Evolution. Evolutionary Game Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[shunyadragon]

Speaking of current studies, here's an interesting look at what is termed as the Evolutionary Game explained by Stanford U: Evolutionary Game Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
It's long and interesting in both phraseology and aspects. The exciting game scientists play...

Misrepresentation, mixed with acrid sarcasm, big time inspired by an ancient religious agenda. It is a game and NOT the science of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Misrepresentation, mixed with acrid sarcasm, big time inspired by an ancient religious agenda. It is a game and NOT the science of evolution.

Didn't say it was the so-called science of evolution. But it sounds like it, doesn't it? (Yes, it does...)
Ok, I'll add to that statement. It sure sounds like a pretty accurate description of the "science" of evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Didn't say it was the so-called science of evolution. But it sounds like it, doesn't it? (Yes, it does...)
Ok, I'll add to that statement. It sure sounds like a pretty accurate description of the "science" of evolution.

But you don't know what an actual description of the science of evolution actually entails.
So, how did you make such an assessment?

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry I can't respond to every poster, yes, time is a situation.
Here is another interesting bit adding to skepticism about dating of artifacts:
Regarding a threat of collapse of a volcanic cone in Ecuador-- eruption of Tungurahua, around 3,000 years ago, caused a prior, partial collapse of the west flank of the volcanic cone...led to a wide-spread debris avalanche of moving rock, soil, snow and water that covered 80 square kilometres—the equivalent of more than 11,000 football field.
Newsweek article.
One of South America's most active volcanoes could be at risk of partial collapse, study suggest

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry I can't respond to every poster, yes, time is a situation.
Here is another interesting bit adding to skepticism about dating of artifacts:
Regarding a threat of collapse of a volcanic cone in Ecuador-- eruption of Tungurahua, around 3,000 years ago, caused a prior, partial collapse of the west flank of the volcanic cone...led to a wide-spread debris avalanche of moving rock, soil, snow and water that covered 80 square kilometres—the equivalent of more than 11,000 football field.
Newsweek article.
One of South America's most active volcanoes could be at risk of partial collapse, study suggest

I have no idea where you go 'skepticism about dating of artifacts' from that article.

Could you elaborate why you think this relates to dating of artifacts?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no idea where you go 'skepticism about dating of artifacts' from that article.

Could you elaborate why you think this relates to dating of artifacts?

I thought when I posted this that if you didn't get the point, there is no discussion. Thanks, I have learned a lot in many ways about your beliefs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I thought when I posted this that if you didn't get the point, there is no discussion. Thanks, I have learned a lot in many ways about your beliefs.

So, that's a "no" ... ?

 

[Polymath257]

I thought when I posted this that if you didn't get the point, there is no discussion. Thanks, I have learned a lot in many ways about your beliefs.

Why would there be no discussion? What, specifically, do you see as the issue with dating artifacts that you think this brings up? What types of artifacts would be affected? In what way?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would there be no discussion? What, specifically, do you see as the issue with dating artifacts that you think this brings up? What types of artifacts would be affected? In what way?

Well,since you asked so nicely, I'll just mention that the earth and ground moves quite a bit when volcanoes erupt and there are other earth-quaking shifts of water and ground. And likely much of what was imbedded in that shifts as well. You really must draw your own conclusions.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, that's a "no" ... ?

OK, I'll use your little post to say that I truly have learned a lot about your beliefs. And I thank you for that discussion. When I come across something I think is relevant in the future, I'll try to post it for consideration. Have a good night.

 

[YoursTrue]

But you don't know what an actual description of the science of evolution actually entails.
So, how did you make such an assessment?

Because I read it and it matches the types of discussions here as well as statements from others about evolution, the questions about it and the changing conclusions about things like, how stupid or maybe not so stupid were the neanderthals and of course the rather unknown LCA. Also that things just happened to cause animals to have blood, hearts, lungs, all by natural selection, is it. Things like that. I recognize that it may seem reasonable to some to believe no outside intelligent force was involved.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because I read it and it matches the types of discussions here as well as statements from others about evolution, the questions about it and the changing conclusions about things like, how stupid or maybe not so stupid were the neanderthals and of course the rather unknown LCA. Also that things just happened to cause animals to have blood, hearts, lungs, all by natural selection, is it. Things like that. I recognize that it may seem reasonable to some to believe no outside intelligent force was involved.

If you understand evolutionary theory, then please explain how the process is proposed to occur, in your own words.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, I'll use your little post to say that I truly have learned a lot about your beliefs. And I thank you for that discussion. When I come across something I think is relevant in the future, I'll try to post it for consideration. Have a good night.

You should have used my "little post" to answer the question. It had nothing to do with my beliefs and everything to do with trying to figure how why you posted the information that you did.

Alas, I rarely get a direct response from you about any point being discussed.

 

[Polymath257]

Well,since you asked so nicely, I'll just mention that the earth and ground moves quite a bit when volcanoes erupt and there are other earth-quaking shifts of water and ground. And likely much of what was imbedded in that shifts as well. You really must draw your own conclusions.

You mean, that it is obvious that the ground shifted and that has to be taken into account when dating? Sure. That it is clear that those things in the flow dated from before the volcanic eruption? Sure.

You seem to think (maybe I am wrong) that such movements are undetectible by geologists, when this very examples shows the contrary.

 

[Astrophile]

Well,since you asked so nicely, I'll just mention that the earth and ground moves quite a bit when volcanoes erupt and there are other earth-quaking shifts of water and ground. And likely much of what was imbedded in that shifts as well. You really must draw your own conclusions.

Do you mean that earth movements disturb or invert the stratigraphic order of artifacts in archaeological settings? I doubt whether this occurs consistently enough to invalidate the whole of archaeological dating. Also, the Three Age System (Stone Age followed by Bronze Age followed by Iron Age) was devised by a Danish archaeologist. There are no volcanoes in Denmark, and the country doesn't suffer much from earthquakes.