Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[David M]

You know you make a very good point here. You are right I cannot name my grandparents from 1869 and this is just over 146 year but here you are claiming that your great granma named “Lucy” is from 3,200,000 years ago.

Strange, my family can be traced back over 500 years and in a patchy way up to 1000 years ago when the family name first arrived in the UK. Maybe the difference is that some people (i.e. my father and his cousins) are willing to make a serious effort while others just like to meander along celebrating ignorance.

 

[Unification]

Your statement does not make sense to me, I cant understand what your even saying here.

Fanaticism is not nature. It is when religious people shut their minds to reality and refuse credible education and knowledge. It has absolutely nothing to do with nature.

There is a great difference between have all of the knowledge "of" something and actually knowing something.

Knowledge "of" something isn't experiencing/knowing something.

That is where the refusal of credibility comes in. One can have all of the knowledge "of" evolution, phylogenesis, science, and life but it really means nothing unless experienced.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't want to assume anything so I will ask you: are you trying to say that information is encoded into matter?

No, in fact I said nothing even remotely related to that claim. Have you confused me for somebody else?

 

[gnostic]

Bloody fri##### God!

It has been over a week or perhaps more, since I have posted here.

The level of education among the creationists that have posted here about science, especially in biology is truly and terribly dismal.

I expect creationists or theists to disagree with science or with biology, but if they are going to argue against evolution, or any other science subject, the least they can do, is understand what they really arguing about, and that mean reading and learning from credible scientific sources, and not some creationist's biased webpages, because they have no qualifications or experiences in evolutionary biology.

And credible sources mean there are "evidences" to support what have been written. Evidences are very important in science, and there are plenty evidences that evolution is not only possible, but pretty much happening in research in diseases (in both viruses and bacteria) and medicine (eg antibiotics), which have real-life application for evolution.

Evolution can also be observed, through wildlife, for instance the Galapagos Islands. Different species of mockingbirds and finches can be found in different islands, as well as different tortoises. The climate (humidity) and terrains (eg rocky islands have less vegetation), and the availability of food, were different islands, so species of animals had to adapt accordingly to the environmental conditions of those islands.

Evolution are not just about the studies or research of fossils.

And for the hundreds of time, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of first life, so why do you keep beating this straw man.

And for goodness sake, don't make things up or lie, because you get found out...and then no one would believe what you say. If you don't know something, it is best to choose to learn from someone here, by asking for help, than to making things up.

 

[Bunyip]

The response was for classical mechanics, not every other explanatory theory in science.

You see differently because you are conscious. Whether we are aware or not, it's impossible to have an all physical/material world using every other explanatory theory in physical science and all of its theorems and laws. It needs extended. It always leads back to the dimension not many are brave enough to explore, and that is highly necessary for the world and science: consciousness.

But there is a huge amount of research into consciousness. There are entire fields of science devoted to it.

 

[outhouse]

That is where the refusal of credibility comes in. .

There is no good excuse for fanaticism and fundamentalism.

 

[JM2C]

You appear to live in the past.


It is 2015 now, and we have found many, many fossils buried within the earth. Time to catch up.

Because fossilisation is extremely rare. Do you think every living organism always leave behind a fossil? What do you think causes fossilisation? Are you aware of the thousands of fossils we already have?

I’m just relaying a message from Darwin. “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” –Darwin

Thousands? NO! Darwin said: “COUNTLESS NUMBERS”.

Let’s speculate why Darwin said, “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” So, the assumption is, we should find “transitional forms” in “countless numbers” but there is a problem according to Darwin and he explained it in the next chapter, i.e., Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

“Darwin addresses the fact that his theory of natural selection is not supported by findings in the geological (or fossil) record. If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record. Unfortunately, those intermediate links have rarely been found. To refute his theory’s critics, Darwin argues that the geological record is imperfect.”

“Darwin argues that because the earth has existed for an unfathomable number of years, based on his good friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the number of changes that have taken place on its surface, including the number of species that have formed, flourished, and eventually become extinct, is infinite compared to the paltry holdings of fossils at geological museums.”

IOW, the only way Darwin could explain his theory on “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” is to make another theory on why do we not find them, and that is because of “the Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.

“Darwin argues that the physical makeup of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux.”

How do you explain a theory? That is very easy, make another theory.

"Lucy’s bones" are dated by dating the strata above, on the side and below the fossil using Argon-Argon or Ar-Ar and Potassium-Argon or K-Ar dating methods. IOW, Lucy’s bones or fossils were NOT directly dated by any dating method, i.e., the Ar-Ar and K-Ar dating methods and yet they aged her at 3,200,000 years old by using another theory, Index Fossil, that is, the strata above, on the side and below the fossil.

You see the pattern here?

So, If one asks how you got the 3,200,000 years on Lucy’s bones/fossils, they would say the strata above, on the side and below.
If one asks on how you got 3,200,000 years on the strata above, on the side and below, they would say based on the theory of Index Fossil.
If one asks on how you got the theory of Index Fossil, they would say based on the strata above, on the side and below.

IOW, A theory is the best answer to any theory.

Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? That’s easy, because of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux based on the Darwin’s theory “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record” that is based on his friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology theory.

How do you explain why there is no Geological Record on any of these theories? That’s easy, Scientists know too little about the history of the earth therefore one cannot refute Darwin’s theory “On the imperfect geological record” and if one cannot refute this theory, the Imperfect Geological Record, then one cannot refute his theory “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”.

It’s a vicious circular reasoning based on Darwin’s delusional theories.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I’m just relaying a message from Darwin. “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” –Darwin

Thousands? NO! Darwin said: “COUNTLESS NUMBERS”.

Charles Darwin Did Not Create Evolution | ReligiousForums.com

Let’s speculate why Darwin said, “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” So, the assumption is, we should find “transitional forms” in “countless numbers” but there is a problem according to Darwin and he explained it in the next chapter, i.e., Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

“Darwin addresses the fact that his theory of natural selection is not supported by findings in the geological (or fossil) record. If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record. Unfortunately, those intermediate links have rarely been found. To refute his theory’s critics, Darwin argues that the geological record is imperfect.”

“Darwin argues that because the earth has existed for an unfathomable number of years, based on his good friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the number of changes that have taken place on its surface, including the number of species that have formed, flourished, and eventually become extinct, is infinite compared to the paltry holdings of fossils at geological museums.”

IOW, the only way Darwin could explain his theory on “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” is to make another theory on why do we not find them, and that is because of “the Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.

“Darwin argues that the physical makeup of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux.”

How do you explain a theory? That is very easy, make another theory.

Stratigraphy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is a different theory that stands alone. Darwin did not invent that theory.

"Lucy’s bones" are dated by dating the strata above, on the side and below the fossil using Argon-Argon or Ar-Ar and Potassium-Argon or K-Ar dating methods. IOW, Lucy’s bones or fossils were NOT directly dated by any dating method, i.e., the Ar-Ar and K-Ar dating methods and yet they aged her at 3,200,000 years old by using another theory, Index Fossil, that is, the strata above, on the side and below the fossil.

You see the pattern here?

So, If one asks how you got the 3,200,000 years on Lucy’s bones/fossils, they would say the strata above, on the side and below.
If one asks on how you got 3,200,000 years on the strata above, on the side and below, they would say based on the theory of Index Fossil.
If one asks on how you got the theory of Index Fossil, they would say based on the strata above, on the side and below.

This is false. The ash is dated directly. That is how we know the age. The ash is never based off of the fossil evidence. The fossil evidence can be clues to how old it is but it is never officially dated that way. We cannot directly date lucy but we know what the dates on the ash layers below and above her were. The only cycle is in your head and on creationist webistes. Evolution is false because evolution is false because evolution is false therefore god. It doesn't work that way. Take the time to actually get your facts strait before you post things.

IOW, A theory is the best answer to any theory.

Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? That’s easy, because of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux based on the Darwin’s theory “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record” that is based on his friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology theory.

How do you explain why there is no Geological Record on any of these theories? That’s easy, Scientists know too little about the history of the earth therefore one cannot refute Darwin’s theory “On the imperfect geological record” and if one cannot refute this theory, the Imperfect Geological Record, then one cannot refute his theory “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”.

It’s a vicious circular reasoning based on Darwin’s delusional theories.

There are geological evidences of these theories. I linked you to the wiki about stratography and if you gave even the slightest care to knowing what is actually factual you could find all of these answers in depth with your own research and come out enriched with the knowledge in less than an hour. Just stay off creationist websites and actually look at the science.

I also urge you to go to a museum of natural history if you live near one. They have guides that can go into depth about how these things happen. You can also call a university and see if you can get into contact with someone who is an actual expert on this stuff that still conducts current research. It may take a few days but I'm sure they would be more than happy to answer your questions.

 

[outhouse]

vicious circular reasoning

You should stop that then.

Take a class on biology and geology at a college or university, then come back when you can speak about things you actually understand well

 

[outhouse]

You see the pattern here?

Yes you refuse credible education and knowledge.

 

[David M]

So, If one asks how you got the 3,200,000 years on Lucy’s bones/fossils, they would say the strata above, on the side and below.
If one asks on how you got 3,200,000 years on the strata above, on the side and below, they would say based on the theory of Index Fossil.
If one asks on how you got the theory of Index Fossil, they would say based on the strata above, on the side and below.

1. True.
2. Lies. The strata are dated using techniques based on the laws of physics. Techniques that provide coherent and reliable results time after time.
3. Lies. Index fossils are simply species whose period of existence has been established using radiometric dating. That means that the approximate age of strata where such species appear can be established without further radiometric dating.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I’m just relaying a message from Darwin. “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” –Darwin

That's not a message it's a question, and it's one that Darwin himself answered in his own time. The answer I gave you is simple. Do you or do you not accept it?

Thousands? NO! Darwin said: “COUNTLESS NUMBERS”.

So? He was asking why we DON'T find countless numbers. I explained why, and Darwin himself knew why. We have, however, found thousands.

Let’s speculate why Darwin said, “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

We don't need to "speculate" because the answer is obvious: He was brought up the question so that he could answer it. It's a common tactic of intellectual honesty. If you want to make a claim, it is considered good academic practice to mention possible objections to your claim and address them. It's hardly complicated, and I'm certain that if you actually read the context of the question you would see that.

So, the assumption is, we should find “transitional forms” in “countless numbers” but there is a problem according to Darwin and he explained it in the next chapter, i.e., Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

“Darwin addresses the fact that his theory of natural selection is not supported by findings in the geological (or fossil) record. If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record. Unfortunately, those intermediate links have rarely been found. To refute his theory’s critics, Darwin argues that the geological record is imperfect.”

“Darwin argues that because the earth has existed for an unfathomable number of years, based on his good friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the number of changes that have taken place on its surface, including the number of species that have formed, flourished, and eventually become extinct, is infinite compared to the paltry holdings of fossils at geological museums.”

And this has already been explained: fossilisation is extremely rare - not every living thing leaves behind fossilised remains.

Do you understand?

IOW, the only way Darwin could explain his theory on “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” is to make another theory on why do we not find them, and that is because of “the Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.

“Darwin argues that the physical makeup of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux.”

How do you explain a theory? That is very easy, make another theory.

That's not "making another theory", it's explaining why we see a limited number of something rather than "countless" numbers of them. And do you honestly think we've not found literally tonnes more fossils since Darwin's time?

"Lucy’s bones" are dated by dating the strata above, on the side and below the fossil using Argon-Argon or Ar-Ar and Potassium-Argon or K-Ar dating methods. IOW, Lucy’s bones or fossils were NOT directly dated by any dating method, i.e., the Ar-Ar and K-Ar dating methods and yet they aged her at 3,200,000 years old by using another theory, Index Fossil, that is, the strata above, on the side and below the fossil.

You see the pattern here?

Yes. People using tried and tested science to verify things.

So, If one asks how you got the 3,200,000 years on Lucy’s bones/fossils, they would say the strata above, on the side and below.
If one asks on how you got 3,200,000 years on the strata above, on the side and below, they would say based on the theory of Index Fossil.
If one asks on how you got the theory of Index Fossil, they would say based on the strata above, on the side and below.

IOW, A theory is the best answer to any theory.

Now you're just babbling incoherently.

Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? That’s easy, because of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux based on the Darwin’s theory “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record” that is based on his friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology theory.

Actually, it's the fact that fossilisation is extremely rare.

How do you explain why there is no Geological Record on any of these theories?

There is a geological record of evolution. We have uncovered thousands of fossils.

It’s a vicious circular reasoning based on Darwin’s delusional theories.

For all of your babbling, you haven't answered either of the questions I posed above. I find that extremely telling of how weak and ill-researched your position is.

 

[David M]

So? He was asking why we DON'T find countless numbers. I explained why, and Darwin himself knew why. We have, however, found thousands..

Thousands? If you are talking just the number of fossils its billions, if its identified species its hundreds of thousands by now (it was about a quarter million 20 years ago).

That is a huge number and Scientists haven't even examined more than a tiny fraction of the rock deposits that can hold fossils. Consider just the Grand Canyon, there are fossil bearing strata that go back tens of miles underground that no one has ever excavated, all we have done is scratch the surface, literally.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I’m just relaying a message from Darwin. “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” –Darwin

Why?? He lived over 150 years ago and we’ve found and learned so much since then. Like genetics, for one. How can you expect to know what you’re talking about if you’re stuck in the 19th century?

Thousands? NO! Darwin said: “COUNTLESS NUMBERS”.

And??

Let’s speculate why Darwin said, “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

He actually said this:

“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote.” …

And you can read the rest here, if you really want to know what you’re talking about:

The Origin of Species - Charles Darwin - Google Books

So, the assumption is, we should find “transitional forms” in “countless numbers” but there is a problem according to Darwin and he explained it in the next chapter, i.e., Chapter 9 - On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

“Darwin addresses the fact that his theory of natural selection is not supported by findings in the geological (or fossil) record. If Darwin’s theory of natural selection were true, paleontologists studying fossils should be able to find intermediate links between existing species and their parent forms throughout the geological record. Unfortunately, those intermediate links have rarely been found. To refute his theory’s critics, Darwin argues that the geological record is imperfect.”[/quote]

Once again, this was stated about 150 years ago (and these aren’t Darwin’s words). Do you really think we’ve discovered nothing since then? Darwin was being a good scientist and pointing out and addressing what he perceived to be the flaws in his theory and then addressing the reasons for them. Unfortunately for you I guess, all scientific inquiry (biology, geology, stratigraphy, paleontology, paleobotany, genetics, medicine, chemistry, physics, biotechnology, etc.) since then, across multiple fields of scientific research have pointed to evolution being a fact of life. The problem for you is that we have actually found hundreds of thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record. Not to mention all the other evidence for evolution you outright ignore.

“Darwin argues that because the earth has existed for an unfathomable number of years, based on his good friend Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, the number of changes that have taken place on its surface, including the number of species that have formed, flourished, and eventually become extinct, is infinite compared to the paltry holdings of fossils at geological museums.”

IOW, the only way Darwin could explain his theory on “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” is to make another theory on why do we not find them, and that is because of “the Imperfection of the Geological Record” based on Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology.

Suddenly you’re not quoting Darwin anymore? What, you couldn’t distort his quotes enough to make your supposed point?


In Chapter 9 of “Origin of Species” (page 199) Darwin discusses the reasons he thinks there aren’t enough intermediate fossils available to us. He talks about how “Only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored, and no part with sufficient care, as the important discoveries made every year in Europe prove.”

Then he goes onto explain the rarity of fossil formation: “No organism wholly soft can be preserved. Shells and bones will decay and disappear when left on the bottom of the sea, where sediment is not accumulating. I believe we are continually taking a most erroneous view, when we tacitly admit to ourselves that sediment is being deposited over nearly the whole bed of the sea, at a rate sufficiently quick to embed and preserve fossil remains. Throughout an enormously large proportion of the ocean, the bright blue tint of the water bespeaks its purity. The many cases on record of a formation conformably covered, after an enormous interval of time, by another and later formation, without the underlying bed having suffered in the interval any wear and tear, seem explicable only on the view of the bottom of the sea not rarely lying for ages in an unaltered condition. The remains which do become embedded, if in sand or gravel, will when the beds are upraised generally be dissolved by the percolation of rain-water. I suspect but few of the very animals which live on the beach between high and low watermark are preserved. For instance, the several species of the Chthamalinae (a sub-family of sessile cirripedes) coat the rocks all over the world in infinite numbers: they are all strictly littoral, with the exception of a single Mediterranean species, which inhabits deep water and has been found fossil in Sicily, whereas not one other species has hitherto been found in any tertiary formation: yet it is now known that the genus Chthamalus existed during the chalk period. The molluscan genus Chiton offers a partially analogous case.”

He gives several other reasons including, “several formations [of the geologic record] being separate from each other by wide intervals of time” and the fact that over time great upheavals in the land has destroyed many fossils that once existed. He also discusses the difficulties with naming and categorizing species of animals that are closely related to or distinctly separate from other animals and how it is sometimes difficult to find closely related species of animals in the same regions as their ancestors because often animals migrate for various reasons. “Thus the geological record will almost necessarily be rendered intermittent. I feel much confidence in the truth of these views, for they are in strict accordance with the general principals inculcated by Sir C. Lyell; and E. Forbes independently arrived at a similar conclusion.” (page 201)


This isn’t a “theory on why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth.” They are explanations given from existing scientific research.

This isn’t really all that important anymore anyway, given that it’s 150+ years later and every discovery since Darwin’s time has only reinforced and further validated the theory of evolution. Including transitional fossils and genetic research. Stop living in the past.

“Darwin argues that the physical makeup of the earth’s surface is constantly in flux.”

Are you under the impression that it isn’t?

How do you explain a theory? That is very easy, make another theory.

Huh?

"Lucy’s bones" are dated by dating the strata above, on the side and below the fossil using Argon-Argon or Ar-Ar and Potassium-Argon or K-Ar dating methods. IOW, Lucy’s bones or fossils were NOT directly dated by any dating method, i.e., the Ar-Ar and K-Ar dating methods and yet they aged her at 3,200,000 years old by using another theory, Index Fossil, that is, the strata above, on the side and below the fossil.

You see the pattern here?

So, If one asks how you got the 3,200,000 years on Lucy’s bones/fossils, they would say the strata above, on the side and below.

If one asks on how you got 3,200,000 years on the strata above, on the side and below, they would say based on the theory of Index Fossil.

If one asks on how you got the theory of Index Fossil, they would say based on the strata above, on the side and below.

IOW, A theory is the best answer to any theory.

Did you not see my post where I pointed out that scientists have found the remains of over 300 individuals of the species Australopithecus afarensis? Why do you continue on as though Lucy is the only one we have?

How do you explain why there is no Geological Record on any of these theories? That’s easy, Scientists know too little about the history of the earth therefore one cannot refute Darwin’s theory “On the imperfect geological record” and if one cannot refute this theory, the Imperfect Geological Record, then one cannot refute his theory “Why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”.

It’s a vicious circular reasoning based on Darwin’s delusional theories.

There is a geological record. And a genetic record. What are you talking about?? The delusion appears to be your own.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you read what I said, it's about more than just opinions - it's about evidence.

You were trying to say that evolution isn't a fact of reality by providing quotes where scientists are quibbling about some of the details and mechanisms involved which isn't entirely honest because they are not actually arguing about whether evolution happens at all - they already agree that it does.

'evidence' is an extremely subjective concept

Obviously Dawkins and Gould were not coming out of the closet as creationists- but they openly acknowledge the lack of direct evidence, the very fact that the fundamental core mechanisms of evolution are still debated demonstrate how speculative the theory is.

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution has evidence. It is considered a science and fact because of the incredible amounts of evidence. Paranormal investigators have nothing for the most part. That is why they aren't considered a science and why they haven't convinced anyone. Evidence evidence evidence. That makes all the difference.

Belief in ghosts is >40% in most polls, and <20% for evolution, so apparently evidence for the latter is even less convincing.

 

[paarsurrey]

Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .


If a thing is not testable that does not mean that is wrong and does not exist.

Regards

 

[outhouse]

'evidence' is an extremely subjective concept

No it is not, that is only your unsubstantiated biased opinion, nothing more.


If it was as you suggest it would not be evidence.

 

[outhouse]

Belief in ghosts is >40% in most polls, and <20% for evolution, so apparently evidence for the latter is even less convincing.

Wrong. Most people are not hat educated and live mythology.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Belief in ghosts is >40% in most polls, and <20% for evolution, so apparently evidence for the latter is even less convincing.

Or, less people are interested in the latter.