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

[metis]

So you have no evidence either. Just opinion.

Nope, I'm an anthropologist who not only studied the evidence. In Wyoming, I held a roughly 80-million-year-old dinosaur rib, and it made me feel so much younger.

Have a nice weekend as I'm outta here til Monday.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you have no evidence either. Just opinion.

Wow! Breaking the Ninth Commandment so early.

This source is not so terse as my other one, but what it says amounts to the same thing:

Science relies on evidence - Understanding Science

5

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[dwb001]

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

Recorded history.

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.

Generally agreed to limit the possible if favour of the naturally probable.

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.

Not circular reasoning. I am not drawing a conclusion from the premise. I am asking for a fair hearing... something you appear to not be willing to give.

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.

That is one possibility... but what about all the trees scoured from the soil and floating in continent sized rafts? So we now have a filtering mechanism.

Bottom dwellers like shells would be buried first then fish in a surprise sand shift... the smaller creatures poor at swimming, followed be larger predators that could survive upon the forested mat.

We have mini models of this event at Spirit Lake. Coal seams forming from bark with vertical trees embedded into the silt.

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

I have... you reject it out of hand.

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.

Like what? What claims have I made? How are said claims irrational?

 

[dwb001]

Nope, I'm an anthropologist who not only studied the evidence. In Wyoming, I held a roughly 80-million-year-old dinosaur rib, and it made me feel so much younger.

Have a nice weekend as I'm outta here til Monday.

Did the rib have a manufacturing date or is that just your best guess as to the age?

 

[dwb001]

Wow! Breaking the Ninth Commandment so early.

This source is not so terse as my other one, but what it says amounts to the same thing:

Science relies on evidence - Understanding Science

5

undsci.berkeley.edu

I am just going by what you said. You offered no evidence but only opinion. No false witness here. Just reflecting your own words back to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Recorded history.

That is not scientific hypothesis and the Bible is not history. You are failing at multiple levels already.

Generally agreed to limit the possible if favour of the naturally probable.

What the heck does that even mean?

Not circular reasoning. I am not drawing a conclusion from the premise. I am asking for a fair hearing... something you appear to not be willing to give.

Nope. All of your "evidence" comes form your book of myths. By your definition the Harry Potter series is history. If you want a fair hearing pick a lane. Choose whether you go by historical standards or scientific ones.

That is one possibility... but what about all the trees scoured from the soil and floating in continent sized rafts? So we now have a filtering mechanism.

No, this is what is called an "ad hoc explanation". It is worthless in the sciences.

Bottom dwellers like shells would be buried first then fish in a surprise sand shift... the smaller creatures poor at swimming, followed be larger predators that could survive upon the forested mat.

The problem is that we find shells at all levels through the geologic column. You already failed. And we have some very good swimmers at a good depth in the fossil record. Mosasaurs were very good swimming lizards. Yet they are found above sharks and below modern mammals. Are you trying to say that sharks are not good swimmers?

You are just throwing out failed ad hoc explanations. You do not have a hypothesis yet. You have no evidence as a result.

We have mini models of this event at Spirit Lake. Coal seams forming from bark with vertical trees embedded into the silt.

Citation needed. And not from a lying source. You may be conflating peat, which is a precursor to coal with coal itself.

I have... you reject it out of hand.

No, you have not made a clear scientific hypothesis. You need a model that explains your beliefs. And most important of all you need a way to test it. You have not come up with one valid test.

Like what? What claims have I made? How are said claims irrational?

All of your claims have been irrational. You refuse to apply the scientific method to your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am just going by what you said. You offered no evidence but only opinion. No false witness here. Just reflecting your own words back to you.

No you are not. We need to go over the basics. You clearly have no understanding of them at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did the rib have a manufacturing date or is that just your best guess as to the age?

This is one of the reasons that you lose. You have no knowledge of the science that you deny.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Not at all. The claims of literalist creationists have failed and continue to from the looks of things. As much out of ignorance as the lack of evidence.

Both are based on the same evidence.

To a limited extent. Much of literalist creationist view is based on a denial of evidence.

You are not even understanding the flow of the conversation.

I understand it quite well. Your first posts were confusing to be sure.

Conclusion that ignore evidence or twist the evidence to fit the conclusion are not equivalent to scientific conclusions.

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

See, you have to be clear what you mean as here. Otherwise respond to what you say and not what you may mean.

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.

There is no lack of understanding on my part. I know that evolution is not the same phenomenon as abiogenesis. I know that the theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. I know that there is no evidence that supports the Book of Genesis as a factual recounting or even as an eyewitness testimony.

The historical account is still a historical account... you don't believe it.

If it is an historical account by that meaning, then that historicity needs to be demonstrated. So far, it has not been.

Those ideas are different but can exist at the same time.

You lost me.

And I would use the same evidence you use to show my position is at least possible.

But the evidence clearly demonstrates that a global flood not only did not happen, but is not possible with the outcome claimed.

Only a cult member blindly follows the leader/expert.

How is this related to the fact that the claims of Genesis remain unsupported?

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

There is no cult of science that I'm aware of. Again, a false equivalency to put religion on the same level as science so that science can be dismissed a merely belief.

 

[dwb001]

This is one of the reasons that you lose. You have no knowledge of the science that you deny.

Do the answer is no... do you understand the presuppositions that go into dating a fossil?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible is an accurate accounting of early events

That does not hold up to any demonstration.

You don't think so... and you are free to have such a viewpoint.

In order to establish this is eyewitness testimony, you have to establish that the alleged witnesses actually existed and the validity of the context in which the witness is claimed. Neither of those two conditions exist for the story of Noah. I might believe Noah existed and the story in Genesis is his recounting of events, but that is not evidence that either is correct nor does it establish the story as eyewitness testimony.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible, baby.

The reality of it is that the Bible is a claim and not eyewitness testimony. This doesn't change if lots of people believe it to be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do the answer is no... do you understand the presuppositions that go into dating a fossil?

Yes, I do. And they can be shown to be valid.

Now here is where the concept of scientific evidence is so important. You do not have any because you refuse to form your ideas into proper testable hypotheses. One thing about the tests, they cannot be based upon commonly known facts. Then you are crossing over into ad hoc explanation territory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dang it, I do have to run for a while. But I will definitely be back.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I use the exact same evidence as modern science.

You are not. You are using the Bible.

I am not a denier.

I would conclude otherwise.

I postulate a possible different mode of geological formation through cataclysmic events.

You can do that. But I'm telling you that all attempts to do so have failed. It was Christian clergy that first came to this conclusion after an intellectually honest evaluation of the evidence.

Modern theory holds to gradual processes. Same evidence can support different theories.

Modern theory does not eliminate and does recognize that cataclysm has happened, but the scale here is global and the evidence does not support that.

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

How about it?

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.

They have been.

If the flood did happen what evidence would you expect to find?

Scientists do know what evidence is expected from flooding and what we should see if it were to have happened as it is claimed in Genesis.

Does that align with what we see or not?

It does 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.

It is not rash to draw conclusions about things that are not in evidence. Claiming that the flood of Genesis was an actual event and a miracle at the same time fits more with the "toe the line" religious views that you are attempting to project onto the acceptance of evidence and scientific conclusion.

Be honest and examine all claims with an open mind and see where the evidence leads.

That is exactly what has happened leading to the conclusions of science. In my experience it is not what happens in coming to agree with the unverified.

Don't close off an entire branch of thinking because you don't wish to believe that God might be real.

It has nothing at all to do with belief in the reality of God to reject bad arguments on no evidence or arguments that are counter to the evidence.

 

[dwb001]

Not at all. The claims of literalist creationists have failed and continue to from the looks of things. As much out of ignorance as the lack of evidence.

I am using the exact same evidence as evolutionists. So if I have no evidence then neither do they.

To a limited extent. Much of literalist creationist view is based on a denial of evidence.

A difference in interpretation is not denial.

I understand it quite well. Your first posts were confusing to be sure.

Like what?

Conclusion that ignore evidence or twist the evidence to fit the conclusion are not equivalent to scientific conclusions.

I would say that evolutionists do the exact twisting that you accuse creationists of.

See, you have to be clear what you mean as here. Otherwise respond to what you say and not what you may mean.

Because thw question changed from what i was saying... i have no eye witness of fossilization but rather eye witness testimony of the events that caused fossilization.

There is no lack of understanding on my part. I know that evolution is not the same phenomenon as abiogenesis. I know that the theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. I know that there is no evidence that supports the Book of Genesis as a factual recounting or even as an eyewitness testimony.

What is your evidence that there is no evidence that the book of Genesis is not factual? Sounds like an opinion to me.

If it is an historical account by that meaning, then that historicity needs to be demonstrated. So far, it has not been.

Thw fossil record and geological structures demonstrates the historicity.

You lost me.

Then follow better.

But the evidence clearly demonstrates that a global flood not only did not happen, but is not possible with the outcome claimed.

Show the evidence. If it is clear then you should have no problem convincing everyone.

How is this related to the fact that the claims of Genesis remain unsupported?

A comment on one thing does not need to reflect on another. Can you not keep two ideas in mind at one time?

There is no cult of science that I'm aware of. Again, a false equivalency to put religion on the same level as science so that science can be dismissed a merely belief.

You missed the boat entirely.
I am not putting religion and science on the same level.
I am not bringing religion into it at all.
Is there such a thing as a cult of personality? Do not movies have a cult following?
Please just try to think clearly. You are the one bringing religion into this part of the discussion.

Can a person not believe the speed of light is not a constant and not be ridiculed out of the lab? If a person is not free to question the foundations of their field we have a cult of some sort forming.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you have no evidence either. Just opinion.

This may be your first rodeo, but it is not for the rest of us. You are as much claiming to have the evidence by your "same evidence, different conclusion" claim anyway. It is your claim, use that evidence then to show us that you are correct.

 

[dwb001]

This may be your first rodeo, but it is not for the rest of us. You are as much claiming to have the evidence by your "same evidence, different conclusion" claim anyway. It is your claim, use that evidence then to show us that you are correct.

First time I have been asked to do that.
Thanks for having the guts to actually ask a question instead of assuming.

I don't have enough time in the day to put forward all the ways that the Bible is correct in its description of events.

And you would exclude any miracles out of hand anyway.

There are lists and lists of things in the old universe model that don't align with observation... but how about the prevalence of heavy metals in the world? How exactly are very heavy atoms produced and why are they in the proportions that they are?

 

[McBell]

I don't have enough time in the day to put forward all the ways that the Bible is correct in its description of events.

And you would exclude any miracles out of hand anyway.

So instead of actually supporting your claim, you are going to try to divert attention from your complete failure to support your claim?

There are lists and lists of things in the old universe model that don't align with observation... but how about the prevalence of heavy metals in the world? How exactly are very heavy atoms produced and why are they in the proportions that they are?

Lemme guess, "GodDidIt" right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am using the exact same evidence as evolutionists.

Show me. Put up the evidence you are using.

So if I have no evidence then neither do they.

The evidence doesn't support your claims.

A difference in interpretation is not denial.

It is as much a denial given the failure of the interpretations as outright denial.

Like what?

The subject was fossils in support of theory and you started talking about eyewitness accounts in that context without providing any of your own context. Do we need to continue this fruitless line of inquiry of the obvious?

I would say that evolutionists do the exact twisting that you accuse creationists of.

Show me what an evolutionist is and that they do the same thing as literalist creationists.

Because thw question changed from what i was saying... i have no eye witness of fossilization but rather eye witness testimony of the events that caused fossilization.

You didn't qualify that in your first posts, so it was confusing. You haven't established that you do have eyewitness testimony.

What is your evidence that there is no evidence that the book of Genesis is not factual? Sounds like an opinion to me.

The evidence that we are talking about and you are claiming you have too.

Thw fossil record and geological structures demonstrates the historicity.

It does not. Show us that it does.

Then follow better.

Ah yes, the last bastion of the flawed poster is to blame the other guy.

Show the evidence. If it is clear then you should have no problem convincing everyone.

You first. It is your argument that you have it and that science is wrong. Your claims. Your burden of proof.

A comment on one thing does not need to reflect on another. Can you not keep two ideas in mind at one time?

Ah yes, more of the insults and venom of the literalist creationist that is always the victim here.

You missed the boat entirely.

I'm on the boat. I see you thrashing about there in the water. I'll throw you a lifesaver. What flavor do you like?

I am not putting religion and science on the same level.

Sure you are. You keep saying it is only a matter of interpretation. I'm guessing you have heard that claim before and didn't explore the validity of it at all.

I am not bringing religion into it at all.

You mention the Bible repeatedly and that it is a true eyewitness account. Give me us a break.

Is there such a thing as a cult of personality?

Don't care. Doesn't have anything to do with the discussion and isn't evidence for your claims.

Do not movies have a cult following?

Don't care. Not evidence supporting your claims.

Please just try to think clearly.

Please stop treating me like an idiot when you cannot support your own claims.

You are the one bringing religion into this part of the discussion.

You brought it up. Not me.

Can a person not believe the speed of light is not a constant and not be ridiculed out of the lab?

What? Please be clear. Your responses are difficult to decipher.

If a person is not free to question the foundations of their field we have a cult of some sort forming.

Are you a scientist questioning the foundations of science or are you someone with a religious view that is claiming that view is factual. Considering that you are making claims about a book that is the basis of a theology and calling inerrant seems to be in favor of the latter.