Icons of Evolution

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 27, 2025

AV1611VET said:
Someone didn't get the message, did he?

Egg on my face on that one.

AV1611VET · Jun 27, 2025

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Egg on my face on that one.

No problem.

It happens to the best of us!

You're one of the more amicable posters here.

Although you do have your moments.

Buzzard3 · Jun 27, 2025

Shemjaza said:
We can't

That means we can't know the true history of life on earth.

Shemjaza said:
and we don't have to.

To know the true history of life on earth,
we do have to.

Shemjaza said:
Accepting things because you have evidence for them is logical.
Making inferences, based on demonstrable patterns and principles is logical.

Empty rhetoric that tells me nothing.

Shemjaza · Jun 27, 2025

Buzzard3 said:
That means we can't know the true history of life on earth.

To know the true history of life on earth,
we do have to.

An incomplete list of facts is still a list of facts.

Facts are true statements.

Buzzard3 said:
Empty rhetoric that tells me nothing.

(I hope your cut off statement "Making inferences, based on demons" wasn't deliberate.)

But not, stating that accepting things we have evidence for and making inferences from demonstrable facts is anything but empty rhetoric.

But you have again declined to define how you use "logic" and "rational" accusations you have used in this thread.

Buzzard3 · Jun 27, 2025

Shemjaza said:
I hope your cut off statement "Making inferences, based on demons" wasn't deliberate.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

BCP1928 · Jun 27, 2025

Buzzard3 said:
Yet more of your empty rhetoric.

We've been agreeing with you for pages, but still you go on. What is your point? Science is an exercise of inductive logic so it does not produce truth.or complete knowledge. So sure, there is room to shoehorn in some kind of a supernatural event here and there between fossils, but what would be the point? What;s your point?

Buzzard3 · Jun 27, 2025

Shemjaza said:
But not, stating that accepting things we have evidence for and making inferences from demonstrable facts is anything but empty rhetoric.

We can't infer the true history of life on earth from the fossil record. To do so would be to enter the realm of pure speculation and fantasy.

However I suggest that a basic pattern is evident in the fossil record from which we reasonably infer that life on earth began as relatively simple organisms, and that over time, more diverse and complex organisms came into existence. Beyond that, I suggest little else can be inferred with any degree of certainty.

Buzzard3 · Jun 28, 2025

BCP1928 said:
We've been agreeing with you for pages, but still you go on. What is your point? Science is an exercise of inductive logic so it does not produce truth.or complete knowledge. So sure, there is room to shoehorn in some kind of a supernatural event here and there between fossils, but what would be the point? What;s your point?

My point is that the history of life on earth cannot be inferred from the fossil record. The true history of life on earth is unknowable and it could be vastly different to what the fossil record suggests.

I wiil also suggest that, bcoz the true history is unknowable, any so-called nested hierarchy gleaned from the fossil record is effectively meaningless as evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

Shemjaza · Jun 28, 2025

Buzzard3 said:
Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

Earlier I said:
Accepting things because you have evidence for them is logical.
Making inferences, based on demonstrable patterns and principles is logical.

But when you quoted it you left me as saying:
Accepting things because you have evidence for them is logical.
Making inferences, based on demons

I hoped that you hadn't deliberately changed demonstrable to demons to be insulting or to make implications about my views being demonic.

Buzzard3 said:
We can't infer the true history of life on earth from the fossil record. To do so would be to enter the realm of pure speculation and fantasy.

However I suggest that a basic pattern is evident in the fossil record from which we reasonably infer that life on earth began as relatively simple organisms, and that over time, more diverse and complex organisms came into existence. Beyond that, I suggest little else can be inferred with any degree of certainty.

That basic pattern formed from multiple independent streams of scientific evidence validate the predictions of evolutionary theory.

The fact that literally anything could be possibly true and evidence demonstrating that is irrelevant to the reasonable logical conclusions that we can draw from the evidence that actually exists.

Buzzard3 · Jun 28, 2025

Shemjaza said:
Earlier I said:
Accepting things because you have evidence for them is logical.
Making inferences, based on demonstrable patterns and principles is logical.

But when you quoted it you left me as saying:
Accepting things because you have evidence for them is logical.
Making inferences, based on demons

I hoped that you hadn't deliberately changed demonstrable to demons to be insulting or to make implications about my views being demonic.

Sorry about that. Total (and weird) accident! I didn't mean to write "demons" - I failed to transfer quote your whole sentence. Anyhow, I went back and fixed the post concerned (#303).

Buzzard3 · Jul 1, 2025

Shemjaza said:
That basic pattern formed from multiple independent streams of scientific evidence validate the predictions of evolutionary theory.

Scientists theorize about what process was responsible for producing the history of life on earth ... and God laughs.

Tinker Grey · Jul 1, 2025

Buzzard3 said:
and God laughs.

God does nothing .... ever.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 2, 2025

Buzzard3 said:
Scientists theorize about what process was responsible for producing the history of life on earth ... and God laughs.

No, you say He laughs. Not the same thing at all.

Shemjaza · Jul 2, 2025

Buzzard3 said:
Scientists theorize about what process was responsible for producing the history of life on earth ... and God laughs.

I'll take demonstrable, verifiable processes over your emotional preferences and you personal conviction for a specific interpretation of your religion.

AV1611VET · Jul 2, 2025

Shemjaza said:
I'll take demonstrable, verifiable processes over your emotional preferences and you personal conviction for a specific interpretation of your religion.

Does it matter who's doing the verifying?

Buzzard3 · Jul 2, 2025

Shemjaza said:
I'll take demonstrable, verifiable processes over your emotional preferences and you personal conviction for a specific interpretation of your religion.

In effect, ToE exchanges the glory of God Almighty for a mindless, natural process (Romans 1:22-23)

Fervent · Jul 2, 2025

Buzzard3 said:
In effect, ToE exchanges the glory of God Almighty for a mindless, natural process (Romans 1:22-23)

That's one way to look at it, or you could see it as God using an efficient "natural" process in His ministrations just as He uses any other mechanical or algorithmic process. Biology, as a discipline, has no opinion about the existence of God or His role(or lack thereof). It's only concerned with what models produce the most accurate predictions about biological systems and the physical records.

Buzzard3 · Jul 2, 2025

Tinker Grey said:
God does nothing .... ever.

If it makes you happy to believe that you're nothing more than a very temporary bag of chemicals produced by some mindless natural process, good luck to you.

Shemjaza · Jul 2, 2025

Buzzard3 said:
In effect, ToE exchanges the glory of God Almighty for a mindless, natural process (Romans 1:22-23)

Nope. Just your interpretation.

I'm an atheist, so it's no skin off my nose... but pretty insulting to the millions of Christians who are okay with using science.

BCP1928 · Thursday at 8:39 AM

Buzzard3 said:
My point is that the history of life on earth cannot be inferred from the fossil record. The true history of life on earth is unknowable and it could be vastly different to what the fossil record suggests.

I wiil also suggest that, bcoz the true history is unknowable, any so-called nested hierarchy gleaned from the fossil record is effectively meaningless as evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

So what? Clearly I think that the fossiles record does a better job of supporting the theory of evolution than you do, but I still don't see your point. Nobody thinks the theory of evolution is absolute truth, but there isn't a more credible theory that explains biodiversity. What do you expect us to do about it?

Icons of Evolution

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads