How many fossils would it take to "prove" the theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt?

[dwb001]

The point of this thread is that fossils are evidence of evolution, but are not required to support the theory, since so much other evidence does just that.

Fossils are just proof that something died. No other evidence supports evolution as a origin of life.

 

[dwb001]

I would also mention that all that Genesis seems to claim is a week for creation, a year for a global flood and 100's of years for lifespans. It does not claim an age for the Earth or the Universe or say when these events are to have taken place. Any claim of when this took place or how old the Earth from the Bible are the extrapolations of people that are clearly incomplete since the evidence of the rocks show the Earth is much older than six to ten thousand years.

Thus is where basic math skills work to fill the gaps in the narrative.

What evidence in rocks? C14 in diamond? Trees in coal?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And that evidence can equally be interpreted as the result of a cataclysmic world flood.

It has failed so far.

The evidence is the same but conclusions can be different.

This is true, but the conclusions are not equal. One is based on the evidence and the other isn't.

The why did you bring it up?

You mentioned eyewitness accounts of fossilization and that the Bible doesn't claim the Earth is millions of years old. I didn't.

The words of the text are the evidence that they are a historical account...

That is a circular argument that assumes the conclusion. A logical fallacy.

you can argue against the account... but it stands as a historical account.

This remains untrue, given what we know and what no one has been able to do.

You are arguing against the form of the text, not me.

I am arguing that the evidence does not support your claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fossils are just proof that something died.

No. Fossils are evidence that something died. They are also evidence that something lived. They are evidence of when they lived. Of where they lived. Or what else lived at the same time with them. Of what was before them and what followed by comparison and examination. They do not demonstrate formation from a single time point a few thousand years ago.

They are evidence of much more than just dying.

No other evidence supports evolution as a origin of life.

Correct. No evidence can.

The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. The origin of life is not the evolution of life.

Biological evolution is change in populations of living things over time. The theory explains what is happening. Living things must exist in order for them to change over time.

 

[dwb001]

It has failed so far.

Your statement is not referring to anything... your rebuttal is flaccid.

This is true, but the conclusions are not equal. One is based on the evidence and the other isn't.

Both are based on the same evidence.
You are not even understanding the flow of the conversation.

You mentioned eyewitness accounts of fossilization and that the Bible doesn't claim the Earth is millions of years old. I didn't.

Not fossilization... but the events surrounding the extinction event known as the Cambrian Explosion.

That is a circular argument that assumes the conclusion. A logical fallacy.

No. A historical account has a certain form. A biography is different from a poem in form. Again you show a lack of understanding of the flow of the conversation.

This remains untrue, given what we know and what no one has been able to do.

The historical account is still a historical account... you don't believe it.
Those ideas are different but can exist at the same time.

I am arguing that the evidence does not support your claims.

And I would use the same evidence you use to show my position is at least possible. Only a cult member blindly follows the leader/expert.

Cult of religion is just as bad as a cult of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say that an eye witness testimony would be better than a pile of old bones.

That only shows you that you do not know how to rate the reliability of evidence. And it is a moot point anyway since you do not have any eyewitness testimony.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of the event in question.

Okay, so we agree. You have no eyewitness evidence.

 

[dwb001]

That only shows you that you do not know how to rate the reliability of evidence. And it is a moot point anyway since you do not have any eyewitness testimony.

The Bible is an accurate accounting of early events. You don't think so... and you are free to have such a viewpoint.

 

[dwb001]

Okay, so we agree. You have no eyewitness evidence.

The Bible, baby.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that evidence can equally be interpreted as the result of a cataclysmic world flood. The evidence is the same but conclusions can be different.

No, it cannot be interpreted in that way. I will gladly tell you why. Scientific evidence is well defined and there is none for creationist beliefs. That is not due to any ban by scientists. It is due to the cowardice of creation "scientists"

To have scientific evidence one has to meet certain qualifications. This is done for several reasons. One is that to be reliable evidence has to have standards. The second is to keep people honest. Scientific evidence is set up in a way so that if people meet the qualifications someone cannot just say "That is not evidence". It puts the burden of proof upon the denier. Here is a clear definition of the concept:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,

The why did you bring it up?

The words of the text are the evidence that they are a historical account... you can argue against the account... but it stands as a historical account.

No, they do not qualify as history either. Historians have their own definition of evidence too. When it comes to miracles they simply ignore them as unsupported religious claims regardless of the religion.

You are arguing against the form of the text, not me.

The Bible is just a series of claims. The vast majority of it is written anonymously, and parts of it were written much later than you probably believe that they were written.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fossils are just proof that something died. No other evidence supports evolution as a origin of life.

You keep demonstrating that you have no understanding of the concept of evidence. You sound like you are getting your nonsense from Kent Hovind. A convicted liar and cheat. Why would you believe him?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible, baby.

Nope, you need to study your Bible some more. That includes the history of it. Until you demonstrate that the Bible is reliable it is only a bunch of unsupported claims. You cannot state that it is eyewitness testimony.

Especially the fictional parts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is an accurate accounting of early events. You don't think so... and you are free to have such a viewpoint.

My viewpoint is supported by evidence. What do you have beside your book of myths?

 

[dwb001]

No, it cannot be interpreted in that way. I will gladly tell you why. Scientific evidence is well defined and there is none for creationist beliefs. That is not due to any ban by scientists. It is due to the cowardice of creation "scientists"

To have scientific evidence one has to meet certain qualifications. This is done for several reasons. One is that to be reliable evidence has to have standards. The second is to keep people honest. Scientific evidence is set up in a way so that if people meet the qualifications someone cannot just say "That is not evidence". It puts the burden of proof upon the denier. Here is a clear definition of the concept:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis,

I use the exact same evidence as modern science. I am not a denier. I postulate a possible different mode of geological formation through cataclysmic events. Modern theory holds to gradual processes. Same evidence can support different theories.

No, they do not qualify as history either. Historians have their own definition of evidence too. When it comes to miracles they simply ignore them as unsupported religious claims regardless of the religion.

If a historian wishes to exclude certain events that shows a bias. How about evaluating claims based upon evidence?

The Bible is just a series of claims. The vast majority of it is written anonymously, and parts of it were written much later than you probably believe that they were written.

I know the dating of the books compiled in the Bible. And even if they are just claims... science should at least be honest enough to evaluate those claims fairly.

If the flood did happen what evidence would you expect to find? Does that align with what we see or not?

To make a rash conclusion that miracles don't happen is the sign of a cult like following of the expert opinion of others. Be honest and examine all claims with an open mind and see where the evidence leads. Don't close off an entire branch of thinking because you don't wish to believe that God might be real.

 

[dwb001]

Nope, you need to study your Bible some more. That includes the history of it. Until you demonstrate that the Bible is reliable it is only a bunch of unsupported claims. You cannot state that it is eyewitness testimony.

Especially the fictional parts.

You are the one claiming fictional accounts... that would be your burden to prove.

 

[metis]

I need to see your evidence of millions and billions of years first.

It's called "scientific reality", not "ancient mythology".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I use the exact same evidence as modern science. I am not a denier. I postulate a possible different mode of geological formation through cataclysmic events. Modern theory holds to gradual processes. Same evidence can support different theories.

I doubt your claims. What is your scientific hypothesis of creation?

If a historian wishes to exclude certain events that shows a bias. How about evaluating claims based upon evidence?

No, it is generally agreed upon that one can reject claims of religious miracles. There is no bias if that is applied equally to all religions.

I know the dating of the books compiled in the Bible. And even if they are just claims... science should at least be honest enough to evaluate those claims fairly.

That is called circular reasoning and is not valid. And they have been evaluated fairly. What makes you think that they that that has not happened? The Flood was refuted long before Darwin's time by early Christian geologists. This may come as a shocker, but one does not have to believe all of the myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

If the flood did happen what evidence would you expect to find? Does that align with what we see or not?

We would expect to see one worldwide layer of fossils that is very poorly sorted. It would not be very thick because even if everything died and was preserved that would not leave much of a record at all. We do not see that.

Of course this is your belief so you should be forming the hypotheses.

To make a rash conclusion that miracles don't happen is the sign of a cult like following of the expert opinion of others. Be honest and examine all claims with an open mind and see where the evidence leads. Don't close off an entire branch of thinking because you don't wish to believe that God might be real.

Please stop projecting. No one on the side of science has made a "rash conclusion". Miracles tend to fail when properly analyzed. It is rash to accept miracles. And a god might be real, but your incompetent and evil god most certainly does not. You keep jumping to unwarranted beliefs and keep making irrational claims.

 

[metis]

The Bible is an accurate accounting of early events.

How could you possibly know that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one claiming fictional accounts... that would be your burden to prove.

It has been done. You cannot claim to be scientifically literate and to not know this.

We can discuss it if you like, But as I said, your side lost over 200 years ago.

 

[dwb001]

It's called "scientific reality", not "ancient mythology".

So you have no evidence either. Just opinion.