The problem of evil

[bhsmte]

Threads like this always turn out like this.

Don't you love observing human psychology?

 

[amariselle]

You have that backwards.

No, I asked a question earlier.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your denial of the obvious is amazing.

What's obvious is that you don't know what you're talking about in relation to this study. You said earlier that anyone can make a computer model. Well, seeing as it is so easy, recall that I challenged you to create one of your own. What have you come up with? Also recall that I challenged you to find just one reputable scientific organisation that has a statement of faith similar to AiG. What have you found?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Religionists make claims about "God's will" all the time, and we're accused of arrogance for pointing to the obvious inconsistencies?

 

[amariselle]

What's obvious is that you don't know what you're talking about in relation to this study. You said earlier that anyone can make a computer model. Well, seeing as it is so easy, recall that I challenged you to create one of your own. What have you come up with? Also recall that I challenged you to find just one reputable scientific organisation that has a statement of faith similar to AiG. What have you found?

Ha ha, buy me the software and the training manual and I will. Making a computer model does not equal scientific evidence. That should be more than apparent.

Actually, I find it quite interesting that you seem to be placing such emphasis for the validity of these scientific claims on the fact that it's undoubtably a learned skill to create a computer model. So what? Does the fact that someone has learned how to do so somehow validate their scientific theories for which they have produced no actual conclusive evidence? If someone is good at computer models, does that somehow automatically make them a good scientist? You seem to think so, as you are challenging me to make such a model, knowing of course that I need to learn how to use the computer program. Therefore, you seem to think that you've somehow invalidated all of my questions and showed me the error of my ways. Hardly. Whether I or anyone else can or cannot make a computer model does not have any bearing on the lack of actual evidence for certain theories and the brash claims being made despite that lack of evidence.

My question remains, are scientists manufacturing their own evidence to fill the substantial gaps in the fossil record?

Where are the actual fossils? There should be thousands of them. Evolution apparently took billions of years after all. And yet, even with all those billions of years, adequate fossil evidence to support Darwinian evolution has not been found, to this day. (It's also worth noting that Darwin himself saw major problems with this) Many other scientists who have chosen to honestly address the issue have echoed Darwin's concerns in the years since.

Oh, and who cares if any "reputable scientific organization" has a formal statement of faith? They clearly take things on faith all the time. They have faith for instance that we share a common ancestor with modern day apes. They believe this is true, and yet they have absolutely no concrete evidence that directly and indisputably links us to this supposed common ancestor.

Again, where is the fossil record to support this? Scientists claim so much time has passed, and yet they can't even find significant evidence? Come on, surely they can do better than that. Their theory of evolution is still just that, a theory.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ha ha, buy me the software and the training manual and I will. Making a computer model does not equal scientific evidence. That should be more than apparent.

Actually, I find it quite interesting that you seem to be placing such emphasis for the validity of these scientific claims on the fact that it's undoubtably a learned skill to create a computer model. So what? Does the fact that someone has learned how to do so somehow validate their scientific theories for which they have produced no actual conclusive evidence? If someone is good at computer models, does that somehow automatically make them a good scientist? You seem to think so, as you are challenging me to make such a model, knowing of course that I need to learn how to use the computer program. Therefore, you seem to think that you've somehow invalidated all of my questions and showed me the error of my ways. Hardly. Whether I or anyone else can or cannot make a computer model does not have any bearing on the lack of actual evidence for certain theories and the brash claims being made despite that lack of evidence.

So you were wrong to claim that anyone can do it?

My question remains, are scientists manufacturing their own evidence to fill the substantial gaps in the fossil record?

No.

Where are the actual fossils? There should be thousands of them. Evolution apparently took billions of years after all. And yet, even with all those billions of years, adequate fossil evidence to support Darwinian evolution has not been found, to this day.

Loudmouth showed you several. Just as I noted earlier, you ignored them.

Oh, and who cares if any "reputable scientific organization" has a formal statement of faith? They clearly take things on faith all the time.

I addressed this specifically in one of my responses to your posts on page 78. You still haven't bothered to respond to it.

They have faith for instance that we share a common ancestor with modern day apes. They believe this is true, and yet they have absolutely no concrete evidence that directly and indisputably links us to this supposed common ancestor.

Again, where is the fossil record to support this? Scientists claim so much time has passed, and yet they can't even find significant evidence? Come on, surely they can do better than that. Their theory of evolution is still just that, a theory.

I provided you a link that explained what the word theory means in science. Did you read it? Evidently not.

 

[amariselle]

So you were wrong to claim that anyone can do it?

With the proper training anyone could do it. Is everyone interested? No. Can everyone afford the computer programs? No. But that doesn't mean they couldn't generate a computer model. Again, you seem to think the resources and ability to do so makes someone a good scientist, it does not.

No.

Thanks for your detailed answer. You've explained nothing about why you believe scientists aren't filling in gaps in the fossil record.

Loudmouth showed you several. Just as I noted earlier, you ignored them.

Actually, Loudmouth inserted ONE diagram and refused to provide the link even when I asked several times. Convenient.

I addressed this specifically in one of my responses to your posts on page 78. You still haven't bothered to respond to it.

Oh, I've answered you, and more than once. You just don't like my answers, so you choose to ignore them.

I provided you a link that explained what the word theory means in science. Did you read it? Evidently not.

I know full well what the definition of "theory" is. Evidently you think I was born yesterday. Do you honestly believe I need you or anyone else to provide me with a link explaining what theory means? Ridiculous.

 

[SteveB28]

Ha ha, buy me the software and the training manual and I will. Making a computer model does not equal scientific evidence. That should be more than apparent.

Actually, I find it quite interesting that you seem to be placing such emphasis for the validity of these scientific claims on the fact that it's undoubtably a learned skill to create a computer model. So what? Does the fact that someone has learned how to do so somehow validate their scientific theories for which they have produced no actual conclusive evidence? If someone is good at computer models, does that somehow automatically make them a good scientist? You seem to think so, as you are challenging me to make such a model, knowing of course that I need to learn how to use the computer program. Therefore, you seem to think that you've somehow invalidated all of my questions and showed me the error of my ways. Hardly. Whether I or anyone else can or cannot make a computer model does not have any bearing on the lack of actual evidence for certain theories and the brash claims being made despite that lack of evidence.

My question remains, are scientists manufacturing their own evidence to fill the substantial gaps in the fossil record?

Where are the actual fossils? There should be thousands of them. Evolution apparently took billions of years after all. And yet, even with all those billions of years, adequate fossil evidence to support Darwinian evolution has not been found, to this day. (It's also worth noting that Darwin himself saw major problems with this) Many other scientists who have chosen to honestly address the issue have echoed Darwin's concerns in the years since.

Oh, and who cares if any "reputable scientific organization" has a formal statement of faith? They clearly take things on faith all the time. They have faith for instance that we share a common ancestor with modern day apes. They believe this is true, and yet they have absolutely no concrete evidence that directly and indisputably links us to this supposed common ancestor.

Again, where is the fossil record to support this? Scientists claim so much time has passed, and yet they can't even find significant evidence? Come on, surely they can do better than that. Their theory of evolution is still just that, a theory.

Rarely do we see so many errors, misunderstandings and displays of ignorance in the one message.

Congratulations.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

With the proper training anyone could do it. Is everyone interested? No. Can everyone afford the computer programs? No. But that doesn't mean they couldn't generate a computer model. Again, you seem to think the resources and ability to do so makes someone a good scientist, it does not.

So you were wrong to say that anyone could make a computer model. You were also wrong to pretend that they were just making stuff up.

Thanks for your detailed answer. You've explained nothing about why you believe scientists aren't filling in gaps in the fossil record.

You are once again ignoring the actual hominid fossils that we already have and on which our understanding of hominid evolution is partly based. This is what you have done: you cherrypicked a single recent study from the literature. You then made a baseless accusation that the authors' were making stuff up because you didn't understand the techniques that they used.

Oh, I've answered you, and more than once. You just don't like my answers, so you choose to ignore them.

Here are the links to the relevant posts (1, 2, 3, 4). Show me where you have directly addressed each of these by linking to the specific responses.

I know full well what the definition of "theory" is. Evidently you think I was born yesterday. Do you honestly believe I need you or anyone else to provide me with a link explaining what theory means? Ridiculous.

Yes, because you clearly don't understand what 'theory' means in a scientific context. You also don't seem to understand what the authors' of that study did or why.

 

[FireDragon76]

Religionists make claims about "God's will" all the time, and we're accused of arrogance for pointing to the obvious inconsistencies?

You have proven yourself in the past to be interested only in debate, not discussion.

The logical problem of evil is easily solved. The emotivist objections are another story. But you could find such objections to anything, because they are not based on reason, but preference. It's like being handed a free gift and complaining because it's not your favorite color.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have proven yourself in the past to be interested only in debate, not discussion.

In what way? Need I remind you that you once complained about my preference for discussion?

The logical problem of evil is easily solved.

How so?

 

[amariselle]

Rarely do we see so many errors, misunderstandings and displays of ignorance in the one message.

Congratulations.

Your opinion.

 

[SteveB28]

Your opinion.

Oh, it's definitely my opinion......I wrote it you see.

But it's an opinion well fuelled by your nonsense - misattributions to Darwin, complete ignorance of the relevance of 'theory' in science, total lack of knowledge of evidence, mischaracterisation of modelling, ignorance of the process of fossilisation.........

 

[amariselle]

So you were wrong to say that anyone could make a computer model. You were also wrong to pretend that they were just making stuff up.

No, I was not. And whether someone can or cannot make a computer model has no bearing on the truth of the model they are making. The models in question here are merely conjecture. The scientists themselves have admitted that they are basing their models on an extremely scarce and fragmentary fossil record.

Nice try though.

You are once again ignoring the actual hominid fossils that we already have and on which our understanding of hominid evolution is partly based. This is what you have done: you cherrypicked a single recent study from the literature. You then made a baseless accusation that the authors' were making stuff up because you didn't understand the techniques that they used.

"Baseless accusations"? Really now? Scientists themselves have admitted that the fossil record has major problems when it comes to our supposed "common ancestor." Would you like me to supply you with information about that too?

If you're so confident in the fossil record, perhaps you would like to demonstrate how complete it really is. How complete are these "hominid fossils" that we have? Do we have an actual, indisputable direct link to our "common ancestor"? Do we have complete fossils that show one species transitioning into another completely different species over time? Where is the fossil record to support that nice little drawing showing us progressing from ape-like creature into modern man?

Here are the links to the relevant posts (1, 2, 3, 4). Show me where you have directly addressed each of these by linking to the specific responses.

You can re-read this conversation. I am done answering the same questions repeatedly.

Yes, because you clearly don't understand what 'theory' means in a scientific context. You also don't seem to understand what the authors' of that study did or why.

Wrong.

 

[amariselle]

Oh, it's definitely my opinion......I wrote it you see.

But it's an opinion well fuelled by your nonsense - misattributions to Darwin, complete ignorance of the relevance of 'theory' in science, total lack of knowledge of evidence, mischaracterisation of modelling, ignorance of the process of fossilisation.........

Really? You do realize Darwin himself expressed the same concerns regarding the fossil record right?

“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

“... the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.

It remains the "most obvious and serious objection" against the theory of evolution to this day.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I was not. And whether someone can or cannot make a computer model has no bearing on the truth of the model they are making.

Then why did you dismiss their findings solely because they used a computer model?

The models in question here are merely conjecture.

How do you know that?

The scientists themselves have admitted that they are basing their models on an extremely scarce and fragmentary fossil record.

Loudmouth showed you some of the fossils here, which you ignored. Moreover, the scientists didn't say that the fossil record as a whole is extremely scarce and fragmentary. The article specifically says:

We know we share a common ancestor with Neanderthals, the extinct species that were our closest prehistoric relatives. But what this ancient ancestral population looked like remains a mystery, as fossils from the Middle Pleistocene period, during which the lineage split, are extremely scarce and fragmentary.

"Baseless accusations"? Really now? Scientists themselves have admitted that the fossil record has major problems when it comes to our supposed "common ancestor." Would you like me to supply you with information about that too?

Yes, your accusations are baseless. You don't understand what they did or why.

If you're so confident in the fossil record, perhaps you would like to demonstrate how complete it really is. How complete are these "hominid fossils" that we have? Do we have an actual, indisputable direct link to our "common ancestor"? Do we have complete fossils that show one species transitioning into another completely different species over time? Where is the fossil record to support that nice little drawing showing us progressing from ape-like creature into modern man?

Loudmouth already posted examples satisfying this question. You ignored it.

You can re-read this conversation. I am done answering the same questions repeatedly.

At this point, I wonder whether you are being deceptive. You didn't directly address my posts (1, 2, 3, 4), except for some portion of 1, so don't lie about it.

Wrong.

You said:

Again, where is the fossil record to support this? Scientists claim so much time has passed, and yet they can't even find significant evidence? Come on, surely they can do better than that. Their theory of evolution is still just that, a theory.

If you understood the definition of 'theory' in science, you would know that this is actually a way of praising evolution for its merits; it's not the insult you imagined it to be. It's only because you didn't understand the definition that you thought that such a comment - "it's just a theory" - would be deprecating.

 

[amariselle]

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.

I am not "anti-science", I am anti-fraudulent science.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Really? You do realize Darwin himself expressed the same concerns regarding the fossil record right?

“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

“... the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.

It remains the "most obvious and serious objection" against the theory of evolution to this day.

Did you find that quote by reading The Origin of Species, or did you copy-and-paste it from some creationist website? My bet is on the latter.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Really? You do realize Darwin himself expressed the same concerns regarding the fossil record right?

“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

“... the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.

It remains the "most obvious and serious objection" against the theory of evolution to this day.

Classic creationist quote-mining. See Quote #2.6 here.

 

[SteveB28]

Really? You do realize Darwin himself expressed the same concerns regarding the fossil record right?

“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

“... the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.

It remains the "most obvious and serious objection" against the theory of evolution to this day.

This is just too easy. The first selective quotation comes from chapter six of the Origin of Species, the second selective quotation comes from chapter nine.

What neither of these dishonest examples choose to include are the answers to those questions which Darwin goes on to offer, immediately following those questions!

I can only hope that you have been ignorantly duped by the dishonest scoundrels from whom you sourced those quotes and have not deliberately chosen to promote their lies.