Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

Let's get this straight. You find that the Genesis account parallels the appearance of organisms in the fossil record. However, if the order doesn't match it doesn't count against Genesis since you can imagine a fantasy land where the fossil record is different and matches Genesis.

Seems like you are starting with the conclusion and accepting/rejecting reality based on that already held conclusion.

First of all, we don't actually know how the universe came into being or how our solar system came together. We also find life occurring in a swarm of life in the oceans as we find in the fossil evidence without precursors for the life we find there.

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all, we don't actually know how the universe came into being or how our solar system came together.

We do have a pretty good idea of how our solar system came together.

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/solar-system-formation/en/

We also find life occurring in a swarm of life in the oceans as we find in the fossil evidence without precursors for the life we find there.

How did you determine that those species did not have precursors?

 

[Oncedeceived]

We do have a pretty good idea of how our solar system came together.

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/solar-system-formation/en/



How did you determine that those species did not have precursors?

According to TOE they are required are they not?

 

[Loudmouth]

According to TOE they are required are they not?

Answer my question, which I asked first.

How did you determine that those species did not have precursors?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Answer my question, which I asked first.

How did you determine that those species did not have precursors?

I didn't, the scientists in the field did.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't, the scientists in the field did.

Really? Examples?

BTW, no known precursors is not the same as no precursors.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Really? Examples?

BTW, no known precursors is not the same as no precursors.

How so?

 

[SkyWriting]

I think AV that you get caught up in the philosophy of science rather than the actual science. Science only is that data that we can discover, the philosophy of science is the interpretation of the data.

No< that's not "the philosophy of science" AT ALL, Nowconfused.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No< that's not "the philosophy of science" AT ALL, Nowconfused.

Ok, how is it and why are you confused?

 

[HitchSlap]

No< that's not "the philosophy of science" AT ALL, Nowconfused.

So, what you're saying is, Oncedeceived, Nowconfused?

 

[SkyWriting]

So, what you're saying is, Oncedeceived, Nowconfused?

It would seem so. He's (She is ) certainly not on track with philosophy.
But who can blame him (her) for that?

 

[HitchSlap]

It would seem so. He's certainly not on track with definitions.

I think "He's" a she, and no, you'll never get a straight definition from her. Eliminates her wiggle room, that way she's never wrong.

 

[SkyWriting]

I think "He's" a she, and no, you'll never get a straight definition from her. Eliminates her wiggle room, that way she's never wrong.

My mistake. She's no longer on my radar.

 

[bhsmte]

I think "He's" a she, and no, you'll never get a straight definition from her. Eliminates her wiggle room, that way she's never wrong.

Yep. Can't get rid of that insurance policy.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, it's based upon interpreting the universe under today's clock and decay rate - which would have been faster in the past and therefore the age of things would appear older than they actually are under today's clocks. And thus the confusion of interpreting those vast amounts of time by using the rate of clocks as they tick today.

So you admit the earth has orbited the sun 4+ billion times, its just that it didn't take 4+ billion years to make those orbits?

And you want us to take a stand like that . . . . seriously?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It would seem so. He's (She is ) certainly not on track with philosophy.
But who can blame him (her) for that?

I asked how I was not "on track" with philosophy? You might explain yourself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think "He's" a she, and no, you'll never get a straight definition from her. Eliminates her wiggle room, that way she's never wrong.

Hitch, how would you like to be reported?

 

[SkyWriting]

I asked how I was not "on track" with philosophy? You might explain yourself.

"the philosophy of science" Look it up. Then explain yourself, to yourself.
Then correct yourself by scolding yourself.

 

[crjmurray]

Hitch, how would you like to be reported?

Found.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Equally dubious is the claim that dating methods unequivocally support geologic time, when we know for a fact that geologic time has never been allowed to be questioned since its acceptance. If an idea cannot be questioned, it is hard to imagine that research is not inevitably biased towards supporting it and data ultimately filtered towards those ends.

More rubbish. You are questioning geological time before our very eyes . . . how can you say, therefore, it is not allowed? However, it is perfectly true that without evidence or cogent logic, your objections to geological time are ignored.