The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

[theQuincunx5]

As I have often stated, I agree that the science is valid. It's the conclusion that I don't accept. A great example is the so-called evolution of the horse. Shown are different animals that resemble each other is some ways. The conclusion that the latest evolve from the former is apparent only to the evolutionist. Others just see different animals that resemble each other in certain ways, which indicates a common design, using common materials, by a common designer.

You must realize there's more than just looking at some pretty pictures and seeing kinda-sorta similarities, right? And that's just the fossil record...on top of this there are numerous genetic lines of evidence for evolution etc.

Evolutionist view creationism as a big Jenga game. If they can pull out the 'design' block the whole thing will come down. Happily most of those blocks are labeled 'design'.

Actually design is simply the latest gambit of creationism. Design came long after creationism. As such it would be strange if removing "design" would bring down Creationism.

No, indeed, what it looks like to me (and I've been following this debate since I was in junior high school nigh unto 40 years ago now) that the "design" gambit has been raised as a new, nearly unfalsifiable wrinkle to give Creationism some "cover".

The battles in the 1990's over the reliance on "Design" were a naked attempt to slip religion back into the classrooms by hiding the Designer behind a wall of obfuscation.

The whole discussion of "design" becomes so ridiculously philosophical and nearly meaningless or certainly unfalsifiable as to render the discussion impossible. In a very real sense life forms are designed by an unfeeling, undirected universe that will weed out the maladaptive features making them look, in retrospect like they were "designed to fit into the ecosystem", but in reality the ecosystem just weeded out the ones that wouldn't survive in the ecosystem.

Look at mud puddle...marvel at how the water exactly fits the hole! It is a miracle.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You don't understand it as evidence because A) you have zero scientific knowledge nor a desire to learn what evidence for evolution is, and B) you've also gone into the discussion with the idea already in your mind that evolution cannot be correct.

The ToE is an elaborate idea held together by speculation and assumption.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The ToE is an elaborate idea held together by speculation and assumption.

And there's those magic words from the uneducated! Speculation and assumption!
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You must realize there's more than just looking at some pretty pictures and seeing kinda-sorta similarities, right? And that's just the fossil record...on top of this there are numerous genetic lines of evidence for evolution etc.



Actually design is simply the latest gambit of creationism. Design came long after creationism. As such it would be strange if removing "design" would bring down Creationism.

No, indeed, what it looks like to me (and I've been following this debate since I was in junior high school nigh unto 40 years ago now) that the "design" gambit has been raised as a new, nearly unfalsifiable wrinkle to give Creationism some "cover".

The battles in the 1990's over the reliance on "Design" were a naked attempt to slip religion back into the classrooms by hiding the Designer behind a wall of obfuscation.

The whole discussion of "design" becomes so ridiculously philosophical and nearly meaningless or certainly unfalsifiable as to render the discussion impossible. In a very real sense life forms are designed by an unfeeling, undirected universe that will weed out the maladaptive features making them look, in retrospect like they were "designed to fit into the ecosystem", but in reality the ecosystem just weeded out the ones that wouldn't survive in the ecosystem.

Look at mud puddle...marvel at how the water exactly fits the hole! It is a miracle.

I see design for what it is.....design. No religion needed. Many believe in God as Creator, but have no interest in religion of any kind. It is science that has made a connection between design and religion.

 

[theQuincunx5]

I peruse lots of evolution 'science' pursuant to these discussions. I just don't see this 'evidence' making the point for evolution as I understand it i.e. goo-to-you. Especially since you are unable to explain where the 'goo' came from (pretty complex stuff that goo).

For one who follows the science of evolution...why do you bring up abiogenesis which has nothing to do with evolution? Hmmm. That's really confusing.

(As for the complexity of said "goo"...I have to remind you that that "goo" is nothing more than regular jive-old organic chemistry. There's nothing particularly magical about said "goo"...it is exactly like non-living "goo" in that it is just plain chemicals doing what chemicals do. Biological chemicals follow ONLY rules that apply to all chemicals.

You can't just ride in on your evolutionary white horse and take over after incredibly complex life forms have already appeared. Get your own 'dirt'.

That's an interesting point. Dirt. You see, all life forms on earth have a certain feature called "stereoisomerization" in which the arrangement of the various atoms in our biological molecules seem to all have the same "order" (there's two possible arrangements of different atoms around a central carbon atom, and all life in the world has the same arrangement of the two possible). INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH that corresponds to how some mineral surfaces adsorb organic compounds. That is the first and necessary step to creating life from non-life...the ability to template and coordinate non-living molecules on a non-living substrate.

So now we have a nice link between non-living and living. Can you remind us why we now need some "special" step to get living things?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And there's those magic words from the uneducated! Speculation and assumption!
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

I find those terms scattered throughout many evolution writings.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I find those terms scattered throughout many evolution writings.

Do you understand what those terms mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

For one who follows the science of evolution...why do you bring up abiogenesis which has nothing to do with evolution? Hmmm. That's really confusing.

(As for the complexity of said "goo"...I have to remind you that that "goo" is nothing more than regular jive-old organic chemistry. There's nothing particularly magical about said "goo"...it is exactly like non-living "goo" in that it is just plain chemicals doing what chemicals do. Biological chemicals follow ONLY rules that apply to all chemicals.



That's an interesting point. Dirt. You see, all life forms on earth have a certain feature called "stereoisomerization" in which the arrangement of the various atoms in our biological molecules seem to all have the same "order" (there's two possible arrangements of different atoms around a central carbon atom, and all life in the world has the same arrangement of the two possible). INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH that corresponds to how some mineral surfaces adsorb organic compounds. That is the first and necessary step to creating life from non-life...the ability to template and coordinate non-living molecules on a non-living substrate.

So now we have a nice link between non-living and living. Can you remind us why we now need some "special" step to get living things?

I believe you guys are hard at work on that special step, are you not?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do you understand what those terms mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.

To me it means you don't have all the pieces in place yet. It would be interesting to see how far back certain unproven 'assumptions' go.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To me it means you don't have all the pieces in place yet. It would be interesting to see how far back certain unproven 'assumptions' go.

You didn't answer my questions:
Do you understand what those terms mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.
And:
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You have to see evolution from the unbelievers viewpoint. We are shown cartoons of "Evolution 101" showing a succession of animals (that may or may not resemble each other) and are told that one magically turned into another. When asked how this could happen an ocean of scientific minutiae is dumped in our lap that would require years of study, at great cost of time and money. Failing that we are expected to just believe it on the general credibility of science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You have to see evolution from the unbelievers viewpoint. We are shown cartoons of "Evolution 101" showing a succession of animals (that may or may not resemble each other) and are told that one magically turned into another. When asked how this could happen an ocean of scientific minutiae is dumped in our lap that would require years of study, at great cost of time and money. Failing that we are expected to just believe it on the general credibility of science.

You didn't answer my questions:
Do you understand what those terms mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.
And:
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You didn't answer my questions:
Do you understand what those terms mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.
And:
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

How could I understand evolution if I don't see the evolution in evolutionary theory? That said I accept the fact that many believe the theory, and that they are probably smart people. There are also smart people who don't buy it, although admittedly our numbers are declining.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How could I understand evolution if I don't see the evolution in evolutionary theory?

OldWiseGuy, I'm just going to keep repeating my questions until you answer them.
Do you understand what those terms mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.
And:
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OldWiseGuy, I'm just going to keep repeating my questions until you answer them.
Do you understand what those terms mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.
And:
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

I'm looking at the forest, not the trees. I don't believe you can get 'here' from 'there' via evolution. Therefore everything in between there and here is speculation. I really don't think you understand the scope of what evolution is being asked (tortured really) to explain.

Later. It's time to 'create' Sunday morning pancakes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm looking at the forest, not the trees. I don't believe you can get 'here' from 'there' via evolution. Therefore everything in between there and here is speculation. I really don't think you understand the scope of what evolution is being asked (tortured really) to explain.

Later. It's time to 'create' Sunday morning pancakes.

Do you understand what those terms (assumption and speculation) mean in a scientific article? Hint: not what they mean in the laymen's terms.
And:
You have admitted that you have no understanding of evolution, so why do you think that you are in anyway educated to say that it is 'held together by speculation and assumption'?

 

[theQuincunx5]

I see design for what it is.....design. No religion needed. Many believe in God as Creator, but have no interest in religion of any kind. It is science that has made a connection between design and religion.

That's not technically correct. In Kitzmiller v Dover a law firm, The Thomas More Law Center, which has as it's primary goal to be the "sword and shield for people of faith" represented the board that wanted ID taught in the schools.

Indeed, design requires a "designer" and to my knowledge there is no value in suggesting a non-supernatural designer because otherwise that designer needs a designer which only results in an infinite regress and doesn't answer any questions.

Honestly, do you really and truly believe in ID without thinking the designer is "God"? And further, do you honestly believe there are people out there who do not think of the designer as "God"? If so, where did that designer come from?

 

[theQuincunx5]

I believe you guys are hard at work on that special step, are you not?

I believe they have been, yes. And again, speaking as one who spent the last nearly 30 years as a research chemist (albeit not in this area) I honestly don't see anything particularly "supernatural" about life per se. It truly just looks like regular chemistry to me.

What do you see that is not regular chemistry and couldn't possibly be part of a continuum between living and non-living?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's not technically correct. In Kitzmiller v Dover a law firm, The Thomas More Law Center, which has as it's primary goal to be the "sword and shield for people of faith" represented the board that wanted ID taught in the schools.

Indeed, design requires a "designer" and to my knowledge there is no value in suggesting a non-supernatural designer because otherwise that designer needs a designer which only results in an infinite regress and doesn't answer any questions.

Honestly, do you really and truly believe in ID without thinking the designer is "God"? And further, do you honestly believe there are people out there who do not think of the designer as "God"? If so, where did that designer come from?

Of course they believe the designer is God, they just choose not to worship him. My dad was not religious but believed in God. The only mention he ever made was when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and confided that he had had a talk with "the man upstairs".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I believe they have been, yes. And again, speaking as one who spent the last nearly 30 years as a research chemist (albeit not in this area) I honestly don't see anything particularly "supernatural" about life per se. It truly just looks like regular chemistry to me.

What do you see that is not regular chemistry and couldn't possibly be part of a continuum between living and non-living?

I'll wait and see if science can produce a self-replicating organism. I'm betting they can't.