Icons of Evolution

[BCP1928]

Ah yes ... the fossil record. For all we know, only a tiny fraction of the organisms that have ever existed are recorded in the fossil record, which means the true history of life on earth could be very very different to what fossils suggest.

That's true of all of science. Scientists never know when they might come up with new evidence which knocks their theory [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-a-hoop. (which is one of the reasons scientists like their work.)

 

[BCP1928]

That's true of all of science. Scientists never know when they might come up with new evidence which knocks their theory [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-a-hoop. (which is one of the reasons scientists like their work.)

I guess I should have said, "...renders their current theory untenable."

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah yes ... the fossil record. For all we know, only a tiny fraction of the organisms that have ever existed are recorded in the fossil record, which means the true history of life on earth could be very very different to what fossils suggest.

Yup.

 

[Buzzard3]

Yup

It follows that the fossil record is largely meaningless as evidence for the theory of evolution ... which includes the "nested hierarchy" argument based on fossils.

 

[River Jordan]

It follows that the fossil record is meaningless as evidence for the theory of evolution ... which includes the "nested hierarchy" argument based on fossils.

Yet paleontologists across the world have concluded the opposite for a very long time. Why should anyone believe your statement over the conclusions of professionals?

 

[essentialsaltes]

It follows that the fossil record is meaningless as evidence for the theory of evolution ... which includes the "nested hierarchy" argument based on fossils.

So is it dumb luck or Satan or some other reason that is responsible for the nested hierarchy that we see?

 

[AV1611VET]

So is it dumb luck or Satan or some other reason that is responsible for the nested hierarchy that we see?

Satan

 

[Buzzard3]

So is it dumb luck or Satan or some other reason that is responsible for the nested hierarchy that we see?

Without knowing the true history of life on earth, I suggest that a nested hierarchy based on the fossil record is meaningless. The true history could be very different to what the fossil record reveals.

 

[Fervent]

There are Christian macroevolution believers out there, and I believe some things were macroevolution driven, but not humans, nor the Cambrian explosion, but one can not be an agnostic Christian. One must trust in Jesus in order to approach God (John 14:6).

2 things...there is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution." The same mechanism drives both, so the distinction only serves to make it seem like there's something inherently un-Christian about evolution. There are things to object to in evolution, such as the notion that mutations are random, but distinguishing between macro and micro evolution doesn't really make sense.

Secont, there very much is such a thing as agnostic Christianity. Though it would be called fideism rather than agnosticism, because the fideist believes without knowledge.

 

[Buzzard3]

Yet paleontologists across the world have concluded the opposite for a very long time. Why should anyone believe your statement over the conclusions of professionals?

The true history of life on earth is unknowable and could be very different to what the fossil record reveals, bcoz it's entirely possible that only a tiny fraction of the organisms that have ever existed were fossilised.
So anyone who considers the fossil record to be a definitive guide to the history of life on earth has arrived at a false conclusion ... and using the fossil record as evidence for ToE is just bad science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The true history of life on earth is unknowable and could be very different to what the fossil record reveals, bcoz it's entirely possible that only a tiny fraction of the organisms that have ever existed were fossilised.
So anyone who considers the fossil record to be a definitive guide to the history of life on earth has arrived at a false conclusion ... and using the fossil record as evidence for ToE is just bad science.

But it's the best evidence we have right now, and all the best evidence points to the Theory of Evolution.

You say it's bad science, but you haven't presented anything better to replace it with.

 

[Buzzard3]

That's true of all of science. Scientists never know when they might come up with new evidence which knocks their theory

Developing a scientific theory that attempts to explain the process that produced the unknowable history of life on earth sounds like a dumb idea to me.

 

[Buzzard3]

You say it's bad science, but you haven't presented anything better to replace it with.

Which Law of the Universe says I have to present something better to replace it with?

 

[Buzzard3]

But it's the best evidence we have right now, and all the best evidence points to the Theory of Evolution.

The best scientific explanation is the theory of evolution ... for what it's worth.

 

[Buzzard3]

there is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution." The same mechanism drives both,

Really? How do you know that mammals descended from fish, for example, via a process of mutations and natural selection?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which Law of the Universe says I have to present something better to replace it with?

It's a Law of the Universe but it's a fact of science: if something is shown to be wrong, something replaces it. Heliocentrism replaced geocentrism.

The best scientific explanation is the theory of evolution ... for what it's worth.

Indeed it is the best. At least you admit it.

 

[Fervent]

Really? How do you know that mammals descended from fish, for example, via a process of mutations and natural selection?

Yes, and we know this from observations of organisms living today. Darwin's contribution wasn't to the idea of mutations, but that the process isn't random but is instead driven by environmental factors that select which mutations are most beneficial to the population. The fossil record only helps us catalogue, it isn't the primary evidence for the theory of evolution and never has been.

 

[BCP1928]

Without knowing the true history of life on earth, I suggest that a nested hierarchy based on the fossil record is meaningless. The true history could be very different to what the fossil record reveals.

So it could. Unfortunately, science is limited in arriving at its conclusions to the evidence available

 

[River Jordan]

The true history of life on earth is unknowable and could be very different to what the fossil record reveals, bcoz it's entirely possible that only a tiny fraction of the organisms that have ever existed were fossilised.
So anyone who considers the fossil record to be a definitive guide to the history of life on earth has arrived at a false conclusion ... and using the fossil record as evidence for ToE is just bad science.

So you can give no reason why anyone should take your unsupported claims over the conclusions of professional scientists, but instead of saying that outright you just post more unsupported claims.

 

[BCP1928]

2 things...there is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution." The same mechanism drives both, so the distinction only serves to make it seem like there's something inherently un-Christian about evolution. There are things to object to in evolution, such as the notion that mutations are random, but distinguishing between macro and micro evolution doesn't really make sense.

Secont, there very much is such a thing as agnostic Christianity. Though it would be called fideism rather than agnosticism, because the fideist believes without knowledge.

Is that so? How can a person be a Chrfistian without knowing of Christ at least.