Bearing in mind how far apart in time fossils can be ─ for instance, three billion years or more between the earliest known cyanobacteria and Ediacaran animals, and more than half a billion from them to us ─ I take it you think genera spontaneously and randomly pop into existence from time to time? How do you think that happens?
And, you say, it's only coincidence that land critters didn't appear before sea critters, mammals didn't appear before amphibians, birds only after feathered reptiles?
So, let me start with this. Features...
Question : Why is that an important determination for constructing an argument?
Answer: ? It's the only "evidence" they believe would make for a strong case for identifying what something is, and where it came from. ?
To do this, one needs to use human intellect, to reason, and make certain judgments, or interpretations. True or false?
So consider your statements [font style mine].
You said:
So no, it is not just inference, it is direct evidence in many cases, from which science, quite reasonably, then infers similar processes for the rest. Just as we classify elements in the Periodic Table, so that we can infer how potassium will react - roughly speaking- if we know how sodium reacts.
Now show me one piece of evidence of a fossil that did not require inference regarding transition.
Do all scientists agree with this evidence?
Question : Did dinosaurs have feathers?
Origin of birds
Since the 1990s, a number of additional feathered dinosaurs have been found, providing even stronger evidence of the close relationship between dinosaurs and modern birds. The first of these were initially described as simple filamentous protofeathers, which were reported in dinosaur lineages as primitive as compsognathids and tyrannosauroids. However, feathers indistinguishable from those of modern birds were soon after found in non-avialan dinosaurs as well.
A small minority of researchers have claimed that the simple filamentous "protofeather" structures are simply the result of the decomposition of collagen fiber under the dinosaurs' skin or in fins along their backs, and that species with unquestionable feathers, such as oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurs are not dinosaurs, but true birds unrelated to dinosaurs. However, a majority of studies have concluded that feathered dinosaurs are in fact dinosaurs, and that the simpler filaments of unquestionable theropods represent simple feathers. Some researchers have demonstrated the presence of color-bearing melanin in the structures - which would be expected in feathers but not collagen fibers. Others have demonstrated, using studies of modern bird decomposition, that even advanced feathers appear filamentous when subjected to the crushing forces experienced during fossilization, and that the supposed "protofeathers" may have been more complex than previously thought. Detailed examination of the "protofeathers" of Sinosauropteryx prima showed that individual feathers consisted of a central quill (rachis) with thinner barbs branching off from it, similar to but more primitive in structure than modern bird feathers.
Feathered dinosaur
Among non-avian dinosaurs, feathers or feather-like integument have been discovered on dozens of genera via both direct and indirect fossil evidence. The vast majority of feather discoveries have been in coelurosaurian theropods. However, feather-like integument has also been discovered on at least three ornithischians, suggesting that proto-feathers may have been present in earlier dinosaurs.
? Seemingly features of both dinosaurs and birds were similar, in relation to feathers. ?
However, without spending a considerable amount of time on this, let me cut to the chase.
I could go into talking about the various hypothesis that arose around Archaeopteryx, and others, and how this is all circumstantial evidence, based on features, but unfortunately My time is limited today, but I would not mind going into it in depth on another occasion - perhaps tomorrow.
I'd be glad to get into a discussion on features, as well as interpretations with you.
Especially on Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and the whale evolution.
Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with other small Mesozoic dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features. These features make Archaeopteryx a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds, making it important in the study both of dinosaurs and of the origin of birds.
Which at this time I would like to complain that no one answered my question, or addressed my argument, so I'll repeat it, since it is my argument in answer to this post also.
My argument is that we have today, animals with gills, and lungs; feet and fins; wings and no flight; beaks and "teeth"; etc., which are also in the fossil record. Look for example, at the new species they discovered. Scientists spot new species near ocean floor - CNN Video
I'm sure there are much more to be discovered, whose features, are not far from those found in the fossil record.
My question earlier was, how is it that these walking fish are supposed to be the transition between fish with gills, and fins, and tetrapod with lungs and feet, yet these walking fish existed 370-380 million years ago, and exists today, and they are not "living fossils"?
The way I see it, interpretations are being made.
So let me be direct for now, since my time is running out. I'll go into more detail later, when I have more time.
I see the theory of evolution no different to how I see the doctrine of the Trinity.
An idea is created based on persons view on a matter, and interpretations on findings are made to fit those ideas, while ignoring the inconsistencies.
To me, neither makes sense, nor seem reasonable, and both are highly illogical.
For now, I will just mention one inconsistency, which I think flies in the face of logic and common sense. I can mention the other inconsistencies later.
We have a brain with which we use to think. With it, we are able to design the most sophisticated pieces of machinery. I don't think I would be using my brain, if I believed that undirected random processes were responsible for the order I see, not only in the universe, but in living organisms with all it's organs in place to perform necessary functions for survival, and procreation, and satisfaction. I haven't even zero in on the most complex of all the organs, which is central to the entire function of the body, including the ability to think and reason.
I can't wrap my head around how someone can actually believe that there was no intelligent agent behind this. To me, to believe in the theory of evolution, I may as well believe in the Trinity.
More later.
Secondly, since the issue here is really about religion (the science is to all intents and purposes settled), I'd be really interested if you can address my question of why you find the idea of God building His creation through the working out of evolution unsatisfactory. As I say, I have never seen an issue with this but clearly some Americans do think it is a problem. What is the objection?
I believe an intelligences was behind the creation of the universe.
I usually reason with persons this way.
There are physical things - things we can see, and spiritual things - things we can't see. It's not a coincidence. In the same way we physical beings interact with our environment, and design things to our satisfaction, and the satisfaction of loved one - including our animal friends, it makes sense that there is a higher life form that has done similar, and the huge stars that fills us with awe and leave our laws on the floor, gives evidence of this.
The fact that so many scientists come up with the idea of advanced life form that may have been responsible for life on earth, is really evidence that nothing else makes sense without an intelligent designer. It's illogical to think otherwise.
To me, it's that simple. As simple as Hebrews 3:4 puts it.
Sorry I have to go now, but I will definitely elaborate more when I return, and address a few things, in your previous posts. @blü 2 please can you provide a source for what you have stated here:
Bearing in mind how far apart in time fossils can be ─ for instance, three billion years or more between the earliest kn
So, let me start with this. Features...
Question : Why is that an important determination for constructing an argument?
Answer: ? It's the only "evidence" they believe would make for a strong case for identifying what something is, and where it came from. ?
To do this, one needs to use human intellect, to reason, and make certain judgments, or interpretations. True or false?
But this is *never* the case in the real world. There are always assumptions (like the assumption that the laws of physics are operative) that are involved. Even if you 'see' something with your own eyes, you are making an *assumption* that what you see corresponds to reality. Furthermore, there is no way to go from direct observation to general principles: no general principle can ever be *proven* based on observation. So, the fact that the earth has been rotating for the last 5 billion years does NOT mean it will continue to do so *unless* you assume that the laws of physiucs are consistent over time.
Now show me one piece of evidence of a fossil that did not require inference regarding transition.
Do all scientists agree with this evidence?
Well, all scientists are going to agree that the same laws of physics were operative in the past as what we observe today. They will also assume that living things reproduce. We assume that the laws of genetics are the same now as they were 500 million years ago (there is supporting evidence of this, but it *is* an inference).
The point is that inference is *always* a factor in *any* scientific investigation, even those happening in the lab on a table top. Your demand that there be no inference from known laws of physics, chemistry, and genetics is unreasonable and needlessly restrictive.
The point is that inference is *always* a factor in *any* scientific investigation, even those happening in the lab on a table top. Your demand that there be no inference from known laws of physics, chemistry, and genetics is unreasonable and needlessly restrictive.
So, let me start with this. Features...
Question : Why is that an important determination for constructing an argument?
Answer: ? It's the only "evidence" they believe would make for a strong case for identifying what something is, and where it came from. ?
To do this, one needs to use human intellect, to reason, and make certain judgments, or interpretations. True or false?
Now show me one piece of evidence of a fossil that did not require inference regarding transition.
Do all scientists agree with this evidence?
Question : Did dinosaurs have feathers?
Origin of birds
Since the 1990s, a number of additional feathered dinosaurs have been found, providing even stronger evidence of the close relationship between dinosaurs and modern birds. The first of these were initially described as simple filamentous protofeathers, which were reported in dinosaur lineages as primitive as compsognathids and tyrannosauroids. However, feathers indistinguishable from those of modern birds were soon after found in non-avialan dinosaurs as well.
A small minority of researchers have claimed that the simple filamentous "protofeather" structures are simply the result of the decomposition of collagen fiber under the dinosaurs' skin or in fins along their backs, and that species with unquestionable feathers, such as oviraptorosaurs and dromaeosaurs are not dinosaurs, but true birds unrelated to dinosaurs. However, a majority of studies have concluded that feathered dinosaurs are in fact dinosaurs, and that the simpler filaments of unquestionable theropods represent simple feathers. Some researchers have demonstrated the presence of color-bearing melanin in the structures - which would be expected in feathers but not collagen fibers. Others have demonstrated, using studies of modern bird decomposition, that even advanced feathers appear filamentous when subjected to the crushing forces experienced during fossilization, and that the supposed "protofeathers" may have been more complex than previously thought. Detailed examination of the "protofeathers" of Sinosauropteryx prima showed that individual feathers consisted of a central quill (rachis) with thinner barbs branching off from it, similar to but more primitive in structure than modern bird feathers.
Feathered dinosaur
Among non-avian dinosaurs, feathers or feather-like integument have been discovered on dozens of genera via both direct and indirect fossil evidence. The vast majority of feather discoveries have been in coelurosaurian theropods. However, feather-like integument has also been discovered on at least three ornithischians, suggesting that proto-feathers may have been present in earlier dinosaurs.
? Seemingly features of both dinosaurs and birds were similar, in relation to feathers. ?
However, without spending a considerable amount of time on this, let me cut to the chase.
I could go into talking about the various hypothesis that arose around Archaeopteryx, and others, and how this is all circumstantial evidence, based on features, but unfortunately My time is limited today, but I would not mind going into it in depth on another occasion - perhaps tomorrow.
I'd be glad to get into a discussion on features, as well as interpretations with you.
Especially on Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and the whale evolution.
Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with other small Mesozoic dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features. These features make Archaeopteryx a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds, making it important in the study both of dinosaurs and of the origin of birds.
Which at this time I would like to complain that no one answered my question, or addressed my argument, so I'll repeat it, since it is my argument in answer to this post also.
My argument is that we have today, animals with gills, and lungs; feet and fins; wings and no flight; beaks and "teeth"; etc., which are also in the fossil record. Look for example, at the new species they discovered. Scientists spot new species near ocean floor - CNN Video
I'm sure there are much more to be discovered, whose features, are not far from those found in the fossil record.
My question earlier was, how is it that these walking fish are supposed to be the transition between fish with gills, and fins, and tetrapod with lungs and feet, yet these walking fish existed 370-380 million years ago, and exists today, and they are not "living fossils"?
The way I see it, interpretations are being made.
So let me be direct for now, since my time is running out. I'll go into more detail later, when I have more time.
I see the theory of evolution no different to how I see the doctrine of the Trinity.
An idea is created based on persons view on a matter, and interpretations on findings are made to fit those ideas, while ignoring the inconsistencies.
To me, neither makes sense, nor seem reasonable, and both are highly illogical.
For now, I will just mention one inconsistency, which I think flies in the face of logic and common sense. I can mention the other inconsistencies later.
We have a brain with which we use to think. With it, we are able to design the most sophisticated pieces of machinery. I don't think I would be using my brain, if I believed that undirected random processes were responsible for the order I see, not only in the universe, but in living organisms with all it's organs in place to perform necessary functions for survival, and procreation, and satisfaction. I haven't even zero in on the most complex of all the organs, which is central to the entire function of the body, including the ability to think and reason.
I can't wrap my head around how someone can actually believe that there was no intelligent agent behind this. To me, to believe in the theory of evolution, I may as well believe in the Trinity.
More later.
I believe an intelligences was behind the creation of the universe.
I usually reason with persons this way.
There are physical things - things we can see, and spiritual things - things we can't see. It's not a coincidence. In the same way we physical beings interact with our environment, and design things to our satisfaction, and the satisfaction of loved one - including our animal friends, it makes sense that there is a higher life form that has done similar, and the huge stars that fills us with awe and leave our laws on the floor, gives evidence of this.
The fact that so many scientists come up with the idea of advanced life form that may have been responsible for life on earth, is really evidence that nothing else makes sense without an intelligent designer. It's illogical to think otherwise.
To me, it's that simple. As simple as Hebrews 3:4 puts it.
Sorry I have to go now, but I will definitely elaborate more when I return, and address a few things, in your previous posts. @blü 2 please can you provide a source for what you have stated here:
I'll look at it later.
By the way, the animation is not mine. I'd do a far better job.
Just kidding. It's not bad.
Why don't we start instead with you answering my very simple question to you, about what you think the features of archaeopteryx are. Bird, dinosaur or some of each?
And then why don't you answer my second question to you about what it is about evolution that gives you problems, from the religious viewpoint. Because your answer so far does not address it. As I have explained in earlier posts, it is perfectly possible to believe in a nature created and upheld by God, without insisting that He has to tinker all the time with His creation. What is so special about life that miraculous intervention is continually required, if you are happy to accept the explanations of cosmology for the intricate order of the heavens?
I find the opposite to be true.
I find there are many Creationist that are reasonable, and willing to reason, while on the other hand, those who close their minds to the possibility of supernatural beings, are really demonstrating close-mindedness, and at the same time willing to accept, any illogical, unscientific theory that has not been observed, but accept it nonetheless because they think it excuses them from any belief they prefer not to accept - Not because it is unacceptable, but because they find it undesirable.
Jesus was quoted to say a foundation built on sand will not stand. Oddly the Bible has been standing on 20 centuries of ignorance and blind faith only. Finally today that ignorance is being abated with education and technology leaving hardly any biblical claim uninvestigated. The bible cant stand up on it's own against sciences such as paleontology, archeology, geology, cosmology, physics, history, etc... So about being open minded to supernatural? Security in an almighty creator and the free gift of eternal life by faith in Jesus Christ would be awesome... if there was any truth to it.
But this is *never* the case in the real world. There are always assumptions (like the assumption that the laws of physics are operative) that are involved. Even if you 'see' something with your own eyes, you are making an *assumption* that what you see corresponds to reality. Furthermore, there is no way to go from direct observation to general principles: no general principle can ever be *proven* based on observation. So, the fact that the earth has been rotating for the last 5 billion years does NOT mean it will continue to do so *unless* you assume that the laws of physiucs are consistent over time.
Well, all scientists are going to agree that the same laws of physics were operative in the past as what we observe today. They will also assume that living things reproduce. We assume that the laws of genetics are the same now as they were 500 million years ago (there is supporting evidence of this, but it *is* an inference).
The point is that inference is *always* a factor in *any* scientific investigation, even those happening in the lab on a table top. Your demand that there be no inference from known laws of physics, chemistry, and genetics is unreasonable and needlessly restrictive.
Are you saying that we do not observe that we reproduce, and we have to assume that we do?
I don't see how that can be considered a reasonable and logical argument. That makes no sense to me.
I don't think many would agree that that is true either.
Why don't we start instead with you answering my very simple question to you, about what you think the features of archaeopteryx are. Bird, dinosaur or some of each?
And then why don't you answer my second question to you about what it is about evolution that gives you problems, from the religious viewpoint. Because your answer so far does not address it. As I have explained in earlier posts, it is perfectly possible to believe in a nature created and upheld by God, without insisting that He has to tinker all the time with His creation. What is so special about life that miraculous intervention is continually required, if you are happy to accept the explanations of cosmology for the intricate order of the heavens?
I am quite disappointed actually.
You mean I took time out to respond to your post, despite having limited time, and having to rush through it, all the while explaining that I would elaborate, and respond later to other things in your posts, only to have you respond by saying you are not going to "wade through all this guff", and then take an attitude similar to some I have encountered here?
Well if that's your attitude, I have one question for you.
In order for you to call it guff, you must have read through it, so what is the problem with my post?
Jesus was quoted to say a foundation built on sand will not stand. Oddly the Bible has been standing on 20 centuries of ignorance and blind faith only. Finally today that ignorance is being abated with education and technology leaving hardly any biblical claim uninvestigated. The bible cant stand up on it's own against sciences such as paleontology, archeology, geology, cosmology, physics, history, etc... So about being open minded to supernatural? Security in an almighty creator and the free gift of eternal life by faith in Jesus Christ would be awesome... if there was any truth to it.
I have heard people say these things before, but it's obvious they are just voicing their ideas. Ignorance is an overused, and misused word, and anyone can use it, as to blind faith, I have no idea why people use it, or what it means, or how people get the two words together. It would seem to me, they likely use the word, because it's popularly heard, but not necessarily meaningful.
What is it... What is blind faith?
I am quite disappointed actually.
You mean I took time out to respond to your post, despite having limited time, and having to rush through it, all the while explaining that I would elaborate, and respond later to other things in your posts, only to have you respond by saying you are not going to "wade through all this guff", and then take an attitude similar to some I have encountered here?
Well if that's your attitude, I have one question for you.
In order for you to call it guff, you must have read through it, so what is the problem with my post?
Yes, it has.35 centuries, really. Maybe it's not so odd, then.... being the best seller it is, published in over 2400 languages.
And the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient Biblical manuscripts reveal the painstaking efforts of copyists, to pass down through those centuries, very accurate copies....of which there are thousands!!
Yes, it has.35 centuries, really. Maybe it's not so odd, then.... being the best seller it is, published in over 2400 languages.
And the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient Biblical manuscripts reveal the painstaking efforts of copyists, to pass down through those centuries, very accurate copies....of which there are thousands!!
You do not seem to understand that the Dead Sea Scrollls are not terribly older than the Bible. The Bible itself was written over a period of less than a thousand years. In fact most of it was written over a period of six hundred years at the most.
I am quite disappointed actually.
You mean I took time out to respond to your post, despite having limited time, and having to rush through it, all the while explaining that I would elaborate, and respond later to other things in your posts, only to have you respond by saying you are not going to "wade through all this guff", and then take an attitude similar to some I have encountered here?
Well if that's your attitude, I have one question for you.
In order for you to call it guff, you must have read through it, so what is the problem with my post?
Dunno, haven't read it. But it is obviously not necessary to write a screed over a page in length just to answer what I asked you in post 99. It looks as if I'll have to answer it for you:-
Archaeopteryx has flight feathers, like a bird. It has a beak like a bird. It has teeth like a dinosaur. It has a long tail like a dinosaur. It has claws on its forelimbs or wings, like a dinosaur. So it is said to be "transitional" between birds and dinosaurs. That's it. This is not rocket science.
You may choose to dispute the implications of it looking like a mixture of the two, but the facts themselves are simple and unarguable.
Now, if you are prepared to acknowledge these facts, I have no objection to you explaining to me why your religious beliefs result in you denying evolution. Maybe I can start this by asking you first of all if you are a biblical literalist. If you are, then no further discussion is needed. However if you are not, then maybe I can find an answer as to why it is so important to you that evolution, alone among the theories of science, should be wrong.
Dunno, haven't read it. But it is obviously not necessary to write a screed over a page in length just to answer what I asked you in post 99. It looks as if I'll have to answer it for you:-
Yes, I find on these forum - the only one I have ever witnessed it on - there are people here who make long posts, and read other long posts, but when you put information in it they don't like to look at, because it's information they can't argue against, because it comes directly from credible sources, and doesn't support their argument.
What a way to debate...
Archaeopteryx has flight feathers, like a bird. It has a beak like a bird. It has teeth like a dinosaur. It has a long tail like a dinosaur. It has claws on its forelimbs or wings, like a dinosaur. So it is said to be "transitional" between birds and dinosaurs. That's it. This is not rocket science.
Since you hate to read facts, It won't make sense for me to bother ever again wasting my time posting them to you. I'll do that with every person I meet from now on with your attitude. You make the forth person I have met here who did the same thing.
Sad really for a debate forum - my first experience.
Maybe RF should implement as a rule what some forums have, where "posting statements as fact without backing up those statements with credible sources are not required to be taken seriously."
Some bird have "teeth". That doesn't rule out the possibility that some ancient birds had teeth. AnArchaeopteryx was found to have rounded teeth, and differently spaced. Variety, they say, is the spice of life.
Other animals have claws on their forelimbs, also found in nature today.
You are right. It's not rocket science at all, and if you did not take this attitude, you would have seen my further response to the fact that what we observe today doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that your argument don't hold water.
You would also have seen that I welcomed discussing the features of Tiktaalik. I was really looking forward to that, but now that's out the window.
You may choose to dispute the implications of it looking like a mixture of the two, but the facts themselves are simple and unarguable.
Now, if you are prepared to acknowledge these facts, I have no objection to you explaining to me why your religious beliefs result in you denying evolution. Maybe I can start this by asking you first of all if you are a biblical literalist. If you are, then no further discussion is needed. However if you are not, then maybe I can find an answer as to why it is so important to you that evolution, alone among the theories of science, should be wrong.
Actually I'm not sure you are interested in debating. If you were, your attitude would not be such, that you don't want to read my post, and adamantly state you "haven't read it", yet call it guff.
How does that work?
I never read a book, but I call it garbage.
That tells me you are just interested in what you believe, and want to push, because you have convinced yourself that what you believe is true, and anything opposed to it is garbage.
There is more to it, and it is the same I observed with a few others - the tactic of dismissing a post, to avoid answering a question - an excuse to sidestep a question.
Are you saying that we do not observe that we reproduce, and we have to assume that we do?
I don't see how that can be considered a reasonable and logical argument. That makes no sense to me.
I don't think many would agree that that is true either.
We assume that the same mechanisms for reproductions operated in the past as do today. This is supported (inference) by the structures preserved in the fossils.
We would not take the hypothesis that storks brought babies in the past seriously, no.
We assume that the same mechanisms for reproductions operated in the past as do today. This is supported (inference) by the structures preserved in the fossils.
We would not take the hypothesis that storks brought babies in the past seriously, no.
