What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

You are correct, it is a scientific theory composed of objective empirical evidence.

Many examples have been provided throughout this thread.
That you choose to remain in ignorance is your own personal failing.

And I mentioned your best examples.
They were ALL failures.
Cannot be used to indicate success.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

wilson: You are deeply, deeply confused.

Am I?
I can still tell what is natural and what is unnatural. You can't!

You have no idea what evolution is. I find this is common among people who oppose it. You seem to be confusing it with atheism. It's not. Would you like to learn what it is?

So it can do to me what it has done to you?
Would you like to learn the natural from the unnatural?


(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Life has changed for the worse.

But how is this relevant to the ToE? See, this particular field of science (biology) can only touch on that a little. It's not meant to deal with social or economic issues. Where this particular field helps is to understand that through the Scientific Method we aren't living "worse" lives but we're actually doing quite well. We have developed ways that help to prolong our lives, we've developed ways to treat and clean our water, we're cultivating and mass producing our food to feed the multitude, we've developed medicines and preventative measures to aid in the treatment of illness or disease. We've done so much and even more when we examine this field of science.

It does neither!

Sure it does. No biologist in the world looks to the bible for the answers to complex biological questions or problems. They all start with the scientific method. If I want to know why I have brown eyes and my brother has blue eyes, why I have course hair and my brother has thinner fine strands of hair, why I'm tall and he's short but we both have the same parents...I don't look to the bible for the answer. I look to biology following the scientific method. The bible is incapable of answering these questions.

Would accepting the existence of a superhuman designer hamper scientific and intellectual progress?

There are plenty of theist biologist. Many are christian and many are hindu. Which gods should they base their science? While one's personal view or acceptance of a god is fine he or she should not mingle their religious beliefs. If a hindu scientist told you his gods were responsible for (A, B and C) you would not accept it because of your own bias. Your own preconceived idea of a "creator" precludes you from accepting his idea of a "creator(s)". This is why science (e.g. Biology) follows a different method. It follows a method where it can observe and test its claims. Religions can't do this.

Is an intelligent designer called for only when no other explanation is offered?

That was one of the biggest reasons gods were invented. Man did not know and attributed what he didn't know to the supernatural.

And does it really make sense to infer from the design that there is a designer?

The question is illogical. You've already "inferred" that what you see and don't understand must have been "designed" therefore there must be a designer. How do you infer "design" when no evidence of a "designer" exist?

You mean that you do?

No. I never presented myself as ever having the answer. The information in your bible says it happened. "How" is the question I'm asking to the believers.

Which came first, the man or the woman?
The question is reasonable because to assert that evolution provided two separate creatures, male and female, and did so simultaneously, is far too preposterous to even contemplate.

Evolution never says that it did (see tumbleweed41's comment). But let me get this straight. You take issue with evolution but yet you're unable to answer ("how") a mans genetic material was taken in order to produce, not a clone, rather a new being of the opposite sex and you don't find that preposterous? If you don't then can you kindly share with the rest of us "how" you think, scientifically, it's possible?

You cannot escape the connection, try as you might.

The ToE, once again, is about "change" in a species over time. It's not about Abiogenesis.

 

[camanintx]

I believe God did it and certainly don't consider myself mentally crippled.

How do you intend to determine the method in which God "did it"?

 

[camanintx]

Wait a sec - you just contradicted yourself!
You said "life is created," yet you deny a Creator.
You speak of the "Laws of Nature," yet you deny the existence of a supreme Lawmaker.
You will admit design in natural things, yet you deny a Designer.
You don't seem to realize what it is that you're saying.
One thing you're really good at - denial!
Doesn't surprise me.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Still peddeling this sophistry I see.

 

[camanintx]

Why are life in peace, economic breakdown, political corruption, greed, terrorism, modern slavery of so little importance to evolutionists? Is it because you have no concern for other people?

Maybe because these are questions for sociologists and not biologists.

 

[wilsoncole]

See Auto.

Why? She's even more confused than she thinks I am.

Now the lamprey's a "living fossil.":

Source: UC Biological Sciences DvisionScientists find lamprey a "living fossil" 360 million-year-old fish hasn't evolved much

Scientists from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the University of Chicago have uncovered a remarkably well-preserved fossil lamprey from the Devonian period that reveals today’s lampreys as living fossils since they have remained largely unaltered for 360 million years...
The Division of Biological Sciences News Archive



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[outhouse]

only you would think because something evolves slow or fast it dispoves ToE

well it doesnt.

different species evolved at different rates.

get a education, it will really help you in life

 

[wilsoncole]

But how is this relevant to the ToE? See, this particular field of science (biology) can only touch on that a little. It's not meant to deal with social or economic issues. Where this particular field helps is to understand that through the Scientific Method we aren't living "worse" lives but we're actually doing quite well.

Take your head out of the sand! Mankind has never been in worse shape. Science can do nothing to help because it does not concern itself with the most important aspects of living: peace, love of fellow humans, kindness, faithfulness, integrity, justice, fairness, generosity, etc, etc, etc.

We have developed ways that help to prolong our lives, we've developed ways to treat and clean our water,

And the desire to gain wealth from such discoveries prevents poorer peoples from ever gaining access to or enjoying these developments.

we're cultivating and mass producing our food to feed the multitude,

Not true!
Crisis in Food Prices Threatens Worldwide Starvation: Is it Genocide?
THIS is the result of greed and selfishness, but science is not concerned with things like that.

we've developed medicines and preventative measures to aid in the treatment of illness or disease. We've done so much and even more when we examine this field of science.

What's the point of living longer when all you actually do is make life much more difficult for others around you? To accept the world the way it is, is to demonstrate a total lack of concern for the other fellow. But, that is not important to people like you.

Sure it does. No biologist in the world looks to the bible for the answers to complex biological questions or problems.

And yet, the Bible does contain the answers. Trouble is, the biologists do not have any answers because they are looking in the wrong places.

They all start with the scientific method.

You keep saying that, but when it comes to the ToE, your scientists never do!
Actually, the ToE is a builder. It proposes to start off with something small like a single cell. But it does not stop there. It pushes ever onward, building and climbing that imaginary “tree of life” until it reaches the pinnacle - humanity. But what is it building on? Has any kind of foundation ever been established? That is where your scientists should concentrate. Show us all how it started, not what the building has become.

If I want to know why I have brown eyes and my brother has blue eyes, why I have course hair and my brother has thinner fine strands of hair, why I'm tall and he's short but we both have the same parents...I don't look to the bible for the answer. I look to biology following the scientific method. The bible is incapable of answering these questions.

There are much more important things that those. Sight is more important that eye color. What would it matter what color of eyes if you could not see? How did sight come about? Which of your scientists have figured that out? I have read a lot of conjectures, but no answers.
Still, it is not a unifying force, a fact that you cannot deny. You have also developed ways to kill off all life on earth. When, in all of human history, has mankind reached that level of deadly inventiveness? You are not willing to face your accursed state. You are not doing well!

There are plenty of theist biologist. Many are christian and many are hindu. Which gods should they base their science? While one's personal view or acceptance of a god is fine he or she should not mingle their religious beliefs. If a hindu scientist told you his gods were responsible for (A, B and C) you would not accept it because of your own bias. Your own preconceived idea of a "creator" precludes you from accepting his idea of a "creator(s)".

The divided, hypocritical and corrosive nature of organized religion is no excuse for the relentless destructiveness made possible by science. How many millions of people have been destroyed by the invention of a single item - gunpowder? In all the thousands of years since men have inhabited earth, when did the first world war take place? During the heyday of science - the 20th century. In fact, science facilitated it! Barely 10 years after attaining manned flight, ‘planes were being used to drop bombs and spray bullets and poison gas from the air.

This is why science (e.g. Biology) follows a different method. It follows a method where it can observe and test its claims. Religions can't do this.

Noble as that may sound, it does NOT follow a different path nor method. It fails to observe most of its claims and most of the claims of the ToE cannot be tested. It rests on faith - just like religion.

That was one of the biggest reasons gods were invented.

And science happens to be one of them.

Man did not know and attributed what he didn't know to the supernatural.

Man still does not know and will never know that he is using his skills to kill himself.
A fool is a person who works, consistently, against his own interests.
“And does it really make sense to infer from the design that there is a designer?”

The question is illogical.

Makes perfect sense to me. You are seeking to avoid the obvious answer.

You've already "inferred" that what you see and don't understand must have been "designed" therefore there must be a designer.

To look at an obviously designed object like a human hand causes misunderstanding?
Even the most primitive of peoples cannot mistake the design of a human hand.

How do you infer "design" when no evidence of a "designer" exist?

The marvelously fine-tuned architecture of living organisms indicates purposeful design.
How do you NOT infer a designer when the design itself is all the evidence you need?
“You can appreciate, though, that it is futile to try to evade the question of the designer. How could the explanation involving design in the universe and of life itself be complete if the existence and identity of the designer were concealed or not even considered?”
Though you may never have seen the original of any of Michelangelo’s masterpieces, you most likely agree with the art historian who called the Italian genius a “marvellous and incomparable artist.” Michelangelo’s talents cannot be denied. Who would try to separate appreciation for Michelangelo’s art from acknowledgment of him as an outstanding artist?” (WT 07 8/15 p. 3)
I am asking you again:
Would accepting the existence of a superhuman designer hamper scientific and intellectual progress?

No it was to show that you haven't the slightest clue as to how it would be biologically possible to take a man and make a woman.

And you mean you do?

No. I never presented myself as ever having the answer.

So how can you possibly conceive of yourself as having an edge?

The information in your bible says it happened. "How" is the question I'm asking to the believers.

I don’t care how. Are you saying it didn’t happen?
Which came first, the man or the woman?
The question is reasonable because to assert that evolution provided two separate creatures, male and female, and did so simultaneously, is far too preposterous to even contemplate.

Evolution never says that it did (see tumbleweed41's comment).

Note the word assert.

But let me get this straight. You take issue with evolution but yet you're unable to answer ("how") a mans genetic material was taken in order to produce, not a clone, rather a new being of the opposite sex and you don't find that preposterous?

Absolutely not! God made man from the elements and chemicals found in the earth. What in the world could prevent him from altering that combination any way he wants?

If you don't then can you kindly share with the rest of us "how" you think, scientifically, it's possible?

If you can tell me how, scientifically, it is possible for man to have abstract thoughts.

The ToE, once again, is about "change" in a species over time. It's not about Abiogenesis.

It is just as futile to try to evade the question of origin.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Why? She's even more confused than she thinks I am.

Now the lamprey's a "living fossil.":

Source: UC Biological Sciences DvisionScientists find lamprey a "living fossil" 360 million-year-old fish hasn't evolved much

Scientists from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the University of Chicago have uncovered a remarkably well-preserved fossil lamprey from the Devonian period that reveals today&#8217;s lampreys as living fossils since they have remained largely unaltered for 360 million years...
The Division of Biological Sciences News Archive

They fit perfectly in line with the ToE. What about them that concerns you in light of evolution? See, they are perfectly suited to their environment. They reproduce as their supposed to. They have an abundance of food. Their particular environment doesn't appear to have changed to the point of speeding up their evolution.

Agnatha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They rely on a row of sharp teeth to shred their host. Fluids preventing clotting are injected into the host,causing the host to yield more blood. Hagfish are decomposers, eating mostly dead animals. They also use a sharp set of teeth to break down the animal. Agnathan feeding habits have limited their ability to advance evolutionarily. The fact that all Agnathan teeth are not able to move up and down limit their possible food types

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And yet, the Bible does contain the answers. Trouble is, the biologists do not have any answers because they are looking in the wrong places.

Answers to what? I want to know what makes me related to some one else, why my hair eyes and skin is a different color than some one else. Why am I sick and is there something that can help me get better. Is there a treatment or cure for my disease. These are some of the issues biologist work on. The bible does not have an answer for this. Questions such as...can I grow fruits and vegetables in areas around the world where they're not normally grown or in environments where they were known to not be able to grow. Why do some species of birds fly south during colder months or why salmon swim upstream...... These are, again, some of the questions answered by biology and where the bible goes silent....so it's of no use to us.

You keep saying that, but when it comes to the ToE, your scientists never do!

It does follow the scientific method. Do you know what the Scientific Method is?

Actually, the ToE is a builder.

If you mean it "builds" up then to a degree I can agree. It's built from the evidence. As new information is discovered and accepted it sheds more light on to what we knew and didn't know. The ToE is an established fact. Any new information basically reaffirms the Theory.

It proposes to start off with something small like a single cell.

No it doesn't. At least not explicitly.

There are much more important things that those. Sight is more important that eye color. What would it matter what color of eyes if you could not see?

It's to illustrate that to certain biologist that study this it is important to them. Their findings are then added to the rest of the biological finds. But even so....it's the scientist that try and determine why a person is blind and using what they know about the eye and the brain they try to solve that issue. They don't look to the bible for those answers because they're simply not there.

How did sight come about? Which of your scientists have figured that out? I have read a lot of conjectures, but no answers.

And yet they at least attempt to answer the question as well as perform experiments for their hypotheses. The formation of the eye and all of its interior detail is not really explained by your bible. If the eye of man was truly designed then it is a flawed. Other species of animals eyes have evolved being way better at ours for specific functions (i.e Owls and cats). Their eyes are vastly superior to ours at night. As you may know, the function of our eyes of humans (some of us not all) tend to deteriorate over time during our life span. Again, if this is "designed" the it is a flawed design.

Noble as that may sound, it does NOT follow a different path nor method. It fails to observe most of its claims and most of the claims of the ToE cannot be tested. It rests on faith - just like religion.

We've gone over this plenty of times and presented a lot of evidence. Biologist aren't proselytizing to anyone. You can, as you have, reject biology all you like, until you're ill or hospitalized and need it. No one is asking you to believe in it at all. We're all just wondering why creationist don't have a testable theory to replace the ToE.

“And does it really make sense to infer from the design that there is a designer?”
Makes perfect sense to me. You are seeking to avoid the obvious answer.
To look at an obviously designed object like a human hand causes misunderstanding?

You infer design because you don't know that you don't know.

How do you NOT infer a designer when the design itself is all the evidence you need?

If you posit design then you must present evidence of a designer. You have yet to do such a thing. To gaze upon something and infer design is mindless and lazy..(imho)

“You can appreciate, though, that it is futile to try to evade the question of the designer.

I don't infer a designer. I don't infer design. You do so it's on you to present the evidence for them.

How could the explanation involving design in the universe and of life itself be complete if the existence and identity of the designer were concealed or not even considered?”

This must be a tough question for you, because I don't infer a designer or design at all.

I am asking you again:
Would accepting the existence of a superhuman designer hamper scientific and intellectual progress?

Only if you publicly try to insert your interpretation of a supernatural (e.g. any of the vast hindu gods, greek, roman, or norse gods etc. etc. etc.) into science.

And you mean you do?
So how can you possibly conceive of yourself as having an edge?

Because I never made the claim man was fully formed. The fossil record displays multiple hominids and this evidence is at odds with your holy text. Since your holy text says man was created fully formed and a woman was created from his genetic material I must ask "how". I'm familiar with the evolutionary history of man which is why I ask if you knew how it is "scientifically" possible to create a woman from man. Your attempts at evading this question is tiresome.

I don’t care how. Are you saying it didn’t happen?

If you're telling me that the evolution of man is incorrect because your version of a creation of man is fact I must ask "how" is that possible. If you don't know, considering it's your belief and not mine, that would be better to admit then dancing around the question.

Which came first, the man or the woman?

You may not like or even agree with the answer but it has been answered already.

The question is reasonable because to assert that evolution provided two separate creatures, male and female, and did so simultaneously, is far too preposterous to even contemplate.

And yet you can't answer how a woman can be created from the genetic material of a man.

Note the word assert.

Note your sidestepping to my original question..:sarcastic

Absolutely not! God made man from the elements and chemicals found in the earth. What in the world could prevent him from altering that combination any way he wants?

So let me get this straight. You haven't a clue as to how your "god did it"....and you want the rest of us to "speculate" (a word you frequently use) as to how it did it...and you don't find this preposterous?.....

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think this might be relevant to the crux of the debate...

[youtube]2tcOi9a3-B0[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tcOi9a3-B0&feature=feedrec_grec_index_more

 

[wilsoncole]

Still peddeling this sophistry I see.

Well, let's see your most effective refutation.


(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Answers to what? I want to know what makes me related to some one else, why my hair eyes and skin is a different color than some one else. Why am I sick and is there something that can help me get better. Is there a treatment or cure for my disease. These are some of the issues biologist work on. The bible does not have an answer for this. Questions such as...can I grow fruits and vegetables in areas around the world where they're not normally grown or in environments where they were known to not be able to grow. Why do some species of birds fly south during colder months or why salmon swim upstream...... These are, again, some of the questions answered by biology and where the bible goes silent....so it's of no use to us.

You are seriously mistaken!
The Bible is not at all silent on any of these things.
If you studied the book you would know that.
Do you want the Bible's answers or are you just flappin' your lips?
I must warn you, it is heavy, rough going and voluminous.

Now - what shall it be?



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[barek333]

You are seriously mistaken!
The Bible is not at all silent on any of these things.
If you studied the book you would know that.
Do you want the Bible's answers or are you just flappin' your lips?
I must warn you, it is heavy, rough going and voluminous.

Now - what shall it be?



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

One thing is not being silent but wrong, or not being silent but wrong in 9 out of 10 things, then being right most of the time, and actively searching for the right answer to questions you dont know an answer to.

But still give us the examples you speak of..where in the bible are those things mentioned and explained, and I will read that and be the first to acknowledge if you are right.

 

[wilsoncole]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
How do you NOT infer a designer when the design itself is all the evidence you need?

If you posit design then you must present evidence of a designer. You have yet to do such a thing. To gaze upon something and infer design is mindless and lazy ..(imho)

Raymond Harris is an architect. I recently acquired him to design a medical clinic and he completed his work in ample time.
The product was detailed and impressive.
How should I gaze upon his work and not see evidence of a designer? His work is ample testimony that Ray is a designer. What further evidence do I need?
The complexity in the works of nature far exceeds the work of Raymond Harris.
Same questions!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[barek333]

Originally Posted by wilsoncole View Post
How do you NOT infer a designer when the design itself is all the evidence you need?

Raymond Harris is an architect. I recently acquired him to design a medical clinic and he completed his work in ample time.
The product was detailed and impressive.
How should I gaze upon his work and not see evidence of a designer? His work is ample testimony that Ray is a designer. What further evidence do I need?
The complexity in the works of nature far exceeds the work of Raymond Harris.
Same questions!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

When I see a snowflake so tiny but yet so beautiful and when I know there are billions and billions of them and not one of them are the same do I think that some magic force touches all little drops of water in the air and makes them or do we know a normal chemical/physical explanation?
Also complexity of works in nature maybe exceed the work of Raymond Harris...but then again..would you really want a medical clinic that would fall apart and crumble in a couple of decades...or if comparing with single celled organisms..(who are also in your opinion more complex than that clinic)...in a couple of days?

 

[wilsoncole]

When I see a snowflake so tiny but yet so beautiful and when I know there are billions and billions of them and not one of them are the same do I think that some magic force touches all little drops of water in the air and makes them or do we know a normal chemical/physical explanation?
Also complexity of works in nature maybe exceed the work of Raymond Harris...but then again..would you really want a medical clinic that would fall apart and crumble in a couple of decades...or if comparing with single celled organisms..(who are also in your opinion more complex than that clinic)...in a couple of days?

How does that exclude a designer?




(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[barek333]

How does that exclude a designer?




(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

It doesnt, it just shows you that his designs are much more flawed then human ones, ergo we are better designers, ergo we are better then him...universe should implode or something like that right about now....oh...nothing

But basically you cannot compare living to non-living in the context of design.

And still you know what a medical center is and therefore you can say it was designed. If you never saw a building and you were presented with one you wouldnt have any idea that that thing was designed. Or lets say like this I show you those fields in..I think Chile where from up above you see big creatures made from rocks and lines in the ground. When standing there on the ground..and having never heard that story you would never guess those rocks were there in some designed pattern, you would only see rocks...do you get what I am trying to tell you?




Oh and you can still answer me for that first quote, you know...'One thing is not being silent but wrong, or not being silent but wrong in 9 out of 10 things, then being right most of the time, and actively searching for the right answer to questions you dont know an answer to.

But still give us the examples you speak of..where in the bible are those things mentioned and explained, and I will read that and be the first to acknowledge if you are right.'..this one

 

[Oneatatime]

The problem with an intellegent designer is that its a not an explanation. It proposes no mechanism by which the designer created the universe and the designer itself has no defined characteristics. In effect creationists are expecting us to believe that the universe was created by an unknown designer using unknown methods for an unknown reason and because of all these unknowns we have no idea what else this designer may or may not do in the future.

There is the additional problem that if a designer created everything in its current state then all observations would be simulataneously consistant with there being no ultimate creator and an ultimate creator. As there seems little point in maintaining that an ultimate creator exists when the universe can be explained in its absence this makes the creator redundent.