baydoll
New Member
No I don't think the devil did it at all. I think whatever died there did it.
Tommy, how would you explain Darwin's Tree of Life?
As in the days of Noah.....
- Thread starter baydoll
- Start date
No I don't think the devil did it at all. I think whatever died there did it.
Tommy, how would you explain Darwin's Tree of Life?
Toxick
Splat
I think they have a better explanation than "life arose spontaneously from primordial ooze". And since the explanations that they do have are qualified as "theories", and those theories are founded on existing scientific principal, I'd say it's not bad science.
I don't think one scientist accepts any of the current scientific explanations of the origin of life as THE VNDISPVTED TRVTH. If a scientist ever comes up and says "This is what happened. The subject is closed" without providing empirical data, then I would agree that it is, of course, bad science. That hasn't happened yet. At least not from any credible group of scientists.
There is no leap of faith required. There are simply ideas about possibilities, and we have resigned ourselves to the fact that no one will ever know.
God is conspicuously left out as a scientific explanation because currently there is no scientific proof of His existence in the first place. And like I said yesterday, you work with what you got.
tommyjones
New Member
No I don't think the devil did it at all. I think whatever died there did it.
Tommy, how would you explain Darwin's Tree of Life?
what the hell are you talking about? You just said the devil did it a few post back
Toxick
Splat
Yes, you could very easily say that.
However, if you do say that, you have partaken in a logical fallacy known as non-causa pro-causa.
Facts are simply facts. And facts, by definition are not wrong.
I will tell you like I told T_P yesterday, it is possible that the interpretation of those facts are incorrect, because it's possible that one of those "holes" could contain something which disproves the whole thing. However, it is extremely BAD science to dismiss the entire thing because such a possibility exists.
Based on existing data, the interpretation of fossil records to conclude evolution is not unreasonable. Discounting the interpretation because it doesn't fit a preconceived conclusion, however, is unreasonable.
It is, in fact, the definition of unreasonable.
Toxick
Splat
I'll throw out the term "Lucy" as an example. That's one example I'll provide.
If you don't want to google it, I certainly don't want to do your research for you. And if you don't feel like putting any effort into the discussion, then I really don't either.
Maybe some other time.
baydoll
New Member
No I didn't.
Toxick
Splat
baydoll
New Member
God is conspicously left out as a scientific explanation because darwinists have redefined science in such a way that the only possible answer is DARWINISM. God forbid any other explanation be given than theirs.
like believing that life spontaneously arose out of nothing? Where is the current scientific proof for that?
baydoll
New Member
baydoll
New Member
What happens if those 'pieces' are never found?
I could just as easily say that because those pieces haven't been found yet doesn't mean they are there in the first place.
Yes, you could very easily say that.
So then we are both using faith, are we not?
Again, the Cambrian explosion pretty much puts the lid on that 'logic'.
I could just as easily say that because those pieces haven't been found yet doesn't mean they are there in the first place.
Yes, you could very easily say that.
So then we are both using faith, are we not?
Again, the Cambrian explosion pretty much puts the lid on that 'logic'.
Toxick
Splat
I've already explicitly said that can't be done.
I've also already explicitly said these are hypothoses, and it says so on the page with the link itself.
Are you just wanting to see the words "Human Science cannot currently demonstrate abiogenisis?"
Ok - there you go. I said it. (Although, I highly doubt this inability to demonstrate abiogenesis in a lab will convince anyone with a scientific mind, that a 7 Day Creation Event took place, unfortunately).
Now, is there anything else that's been repeatedly said, both implicitly and explicitly that you would care for me to reiterate one more time?
My point is was - and remains - there is no "leap of faith". There is no bad science involved, because there is no scientific concensus to the origin of life.
Just theories, and (this is key) they are treated as such.
Interjecting Intelligent Design into the set of theories is, however, Bad Science becuse there is no impirical data which could possiblly be contrived to point to such a conclusion, in any fashion, whatsoever - outside of a very non-detailed and sporadic biblical account of creation, written millions of years (or a few hundred, if you prefer) after it happened by someone who wasn't there.
Toxick
Splat
We are not.
At least, not in the purposes of this discussion. Don't forget, I am a Christian, and I do believe in Intelligent Design. I just don't think it has any place in a Science class.
To you, perhaps. I still fail to see how the cambrian explosion scientifically disproves evolution. But then, I'm not a geneticist, biologist or geologist.
Toxick
Splat
Skeletons?
Fossils?
....
Didn't I just say that in the very post you're responding to?
baydoll
New Member
Originally Posted by baydoll
Please provide one example and no I don't want to 'Google' it, thanks. Let's examine these 'links' in further detail.
Oh LUCY God bless her little monkey heart, LOL! I am so glad you decide to throw her out and an excellent example she is too!
Let's take a look at Australopithecus afarensis, or Lucy shall we?
In 1967, National Geographic magazine did a feature on what they thought was a major find in Ethiopia. It was a collection of bone fragments (40%) from a three and a half foot tall chimpanzee skeleton found in 1974 by Donald Johanson, an American. From about 1979 it gained the favor of many evolutionists as the key ape-like ancestor of modern man EVEN THOUGHT IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE A CHIMPANZEE, but one that is claimed to have walked upright.
I could be wrong but DON'T WE HAVE UPRIGHT WALKING CHIMPS AROUND TODAY?
This proves nothing more than they found a fossil of a chimpanzee who walked upright just like the ones we have today. Excellent specimen of the missing link!
Got any more?
Please provide one example and no I don't want to 'Google' it, thanks. Let's examine these 'links' in further detail.
Oh LUCY God bless her little monkey heart, LOL! I am so glad you decide to throw her out and an excellent example she is too!
Let's take a look at Australopithecus afarensis, or Lucy shall we?
In 1967, National Geographic magazine did a feature on what they thought was a major find in Ethiopia. It was a collection of bone fragments (40%) from a three and a half foot tall chimpanzee skeleton found in 1974 by Donald Johanson, an American. From about 1979 it gained the favor of many evolutionists as the key ape-like ancestor of modern man EVEN THOUGHT IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE A CHIMPANZEE, but one that is claimed to have walked upright.
I could be wrong but DON'T WE HAVE UPRIGHT WALKING CHIMPS AROUND TODAY?
This proves nothing more than they found a fossil of a chimpanzee who walked upright just like the ones we have today. Excellent specimen of the missing link!
Got any more?
Toxick
Splat
No, on both counts. Not if you're going to dismiss everything that I say out of hand. I don't usually continue debate with someone who is deliberately obtuse.