The problem of evil

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Exactly my point. They've admitted their shortcomings, but instead of stopping there and investing in the continued search for actual evidence, they fill the gaps with their computer models, and call THAT evidence.

Computer models are NOT evidence, they are mere conjecture.

They're calling the computer models predictions, not evidence.

 

[amariselle]

You are trying to rename something to make it sound less credible. You seem to be projecting.

How have I renamed anything? I called them exactly what they are, computer modules.

Scientists refer to these as scientific models or conclusions, quite separate from scientific evidence. You are the only one trying to change scientific conclusions into something they aren't.

Really? How is pointing out the method scientists use to fill in major gaps in the fossil record changing scientific conclusions?

How are they overreaching?

Scientists aren't allowed to use observations to make tentative conclusions?

They are overreaching, because they have admitted they have very little actual evidence.

And they are not making "tentative conclusions." They have based massive claims on a fragmentary fossil record.

 

[SteveB28]

Actually, they are admitting that the way their models look may not be exact, but they ARE using these models to "prove" that such evolution is a reality.

The fact remains, they are using these models to fill huge gaps in the fossil record. Scientists have been making bold claims about the evolution of man for many years now, and there is still no adequate fossil evidence to support their claims.

As soon as I see an anti-science person use the word "proof", it tells me that they don't have a clue about which they speak.

 

[Loudmouth]

How have I renamed anything?

Scientists describe them as conclusions. You try to rename it as evidence in an attempt to discredit the scientists.

I called them exactly what they are, computer modules.

You tried to claim that scientists are calling them evidence, which they never did.

Really? How is pointing out the method scientists use to fill in major gaps in the fossil record changing scientific conclusions?

"Actually, they are admitting that the way their models look may not be exact, but they ARE using these models to "prove" that such evolution is a reality. "

"Are scientists manufacturing their own "evidence" to fill the huge gaps in the fossil record or aren't they?

It's pretty obvious what is happening. Deny it if you want. Your choice."

Two quotes from you where you misrepresent what scientists state are conclusions as evidence. You try to claim that scientists are misrepresenting their conclusions as evidence, yet can't find a single instance of a scientist actually doing that.

They are overreaching, because they have admitted they have very little actual evidence.

And they are not making "tentative conclusions." They have based massive claims on a fragmentary fossil record.

Doesn't look fragmentary to me.

 

[amariselle]

They're calling the computer models predictions, not evidence.

They are "predictions" in the sense that scientists admit they don't know exactly what the skeletal structures looked like. They are not however considering their computer models predictions as to the claim that such transitions actually occurred. As far as they're concerned these transitions absolutely happened, even though they have no substantial evidence for such claims, and they've even admitted as much.

 

[SteveB28]

How have I renamed anything? I called them exactly what they are, computer modules.



Really? How is pointing out the method scientists use to fill in major gaps in the fossil record changing scientific conclusions?



They are overreaching, because they have admitted they have very little actual evidence.

And they are not making "tentative conclusions." They have based massive claims on a fragmentary fossil record.

Here's something to help your woefully inadequate knowledge of the scientific process...

When we discovered Tiktaalik, we did so largely on the basis of following a predictive model which indicated where we should look to find it. The prediction was successful.

Now, the model itself is not evidence, but it was constructed on the basis of other evidence which had already been collected.

And this is a feature of any robust scientific theory......it should be able to be used to predict further advances in knowledge.

Does any of this help you, or is it time to put that head back into the sand?

 

[Loudmouth]

They are "predictions" in the sense that scientists admit they don't know exactly what the skeletal structures looked like. They are not however considering their computer models predictions as to the claim that such transitions actually occurred. As far as they're concerned these transitions absolutely happened, even though they have no substantial evidence for such claims, and they've even admitted as much.

The transitional fossils are not evidence that the transition occurred?

 

[amariselle]

Scientists describe them as conclusions. You try to rename it as evidence in an attempt to discredit the scientists.

I said they are using their computer models as evidence, and they are.

You tried to claim that scientists are calling them evidence, which they never did.

"Actually, they are admitting that the way their models look may not be exact, but they ARE using these models to "prove" that such evolution is a reality. "

"Are scientists manufacturing their own "evidence" to fill the huge gaps in the fossil record or aren't they?

It's pretty obvious what is happening. Deny it if you want. Your choice."

Two quotes from you where you misrepresent what scientists state are conclusions as evidence. You try to claim that scientists are misrepresenting their conclusions as evidence, yet can't find a single instance of a scientist actually doing that.

Doesn't look fragmentary to me.

So you disagree with scientists then? You do realize they've acknowledged that the fossil evidence is fragmentary right?

Oh, and I asked for credible sources, not just conveniently inserted pictures.

 

[amariselle]

Here's something to help your woefully inadequate knowledge of the scientific process...

When we discovered Tiktaalik, we did so largely on the basis of following a predictive model which indicated where we should look to find it. The prediction was successful.

Now, the model itself is not evidence, but it was constructed on the basis of other evidence which had already been collected.

And this is a feature of any robust scientific theory......it should be able to be used to predict further advances in knowledge.

Does any of this help you, or is it time to put that head back into the sand?

You prove my point.

 

[Loudmouth]

I said they are using their computer models as evidence, and they are.

WHERE?????

So you disagree with scientists then? You do realize they've acknowledged that the fossil evidence is fragmentary right?

I agree with the scientists.

"For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Oh, and I asked for credible sources, not just conveniently inserted pictures.

What is more credible than the fossils themselves?

 

[amariselle]

WHERE?????



I agree with the scientists.

"For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"



What is more credible than the fossils themselves?

Where is the link? That is just a picture.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where is the link? That is just a picture.

They are scientific observations and evidence, the very things you are asking for. I also gave you a quote from Gould, which you apparently missed.

 

[amariselle]

They are scientific observations and evidence, the very things you are asking for. I also gave you a quote from Gould, which you apparently missed.

No, I didn't miss it. However, I can give you many other quotes that question what he's claiming.

 

[FireDragon76]

What we are talking about is the inescapable conclusion that the God described by Christian theology is immoral. I guess you wouldn't have to hate a child to watch the child suffer a painful death and do nothing about it, all the while having the power to instantly heal the child with a minimum of effort. However, no moral deity would do such a thing.

That seems very presumptuous of you that you'ld know how an omniscient mind should reason. I sense a lack of humility on your part in making such a strident claim.

 

[Chany]

You prove my point.

How?

Look, the people at the Smithsonean and other scienctific institutions already accept the theory of evolution and the human evolution. They are already assuming that human evolution is adaquately supported and are using a computer model, using data from actual fossils, to predict what kind of fossil we should be looking for and what this means. They aren't try to fill a massive gap in the argument because, from their persepctive, the argument is over unless some massive earth-shattering evidence changes everything. They are trying to further look into the specifics of human evolution, not provide support for a scientific theory or argue against a bunch of creationists.

Here's an important question: what would you need to convince you of human evolution?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

What are we talking about again? Evil or the Smithsonian?

 

[Chany]

What are we talking about again? Evil or the Smithsonian?

Threads like this always turn out like this.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Threads like this always turn out like this.

It's all good.

 

[amariselle]

Look, the people at the Smithsonean and other scienctific institutions already accept the theory of evolution and the human evolution. They are already assuming that human evolution is adaquately supported and are using a computer model, using data from actual fossils, to predict what kind of fossil we should be looking for and what this means.

Which is it? They "already accept" evolution or they are "assuming that human evolution is adequately supported"? It can't be both.

Personally, I think you are quite right, they are "assuming" a lot of things when it comes to our "common ancestor" and the necessary evolution involved. They have yet to demonstrate a direct link based on actual, concrete and observable evidence.

How?They aren't try to fill a massive gap in the argument because, from their persepctive, the argument is over unless some massive earth-shattering evidence changes everything.

So, in other words science already has pretty much all of the important answers then? That's strange, I've always heard the opposite. Isn't science supposed to remain open to new discoveries? I had no idea that it would take "some massive earth-shattering evidence" to cause scientists to be willing to explore the question of human evolution further.

They are trying to further look into the specifics of human evolution, not provide support for a scientific theory or argue against a bunch of creationists.

Really? So not only are scientists unwilling to consider evidence short of "something "massive" and "earth-shattering", but they are also unwilling to consider any questions or even objections to their research and their theories. Sounds kind of dishonest to me. It seems that scientists have closed rank. Do scientists have something to hide? Why else wouldn't they want to consider any objections to their research and/or methods? How can they hope to come to any trustworthy and objective conclusions if they remain in their little self-constructed bubble?

Here's an important question: what would you need to convince you of human evolution?

I would need a complete fossil record, not computer models. Computer models prove nothing, I want the gaps filled with actual fossils.

 

[bhsmte]

Is that the only answer you have?

Can you answer my question?

You have that backwards.