Evolution is not science

[lasthero]

Tentatively confirmed?

What on earth does that mean?

Exactly what it says. All theories are tentative - they're subject to change in light of new data. Nothing is ever 100% proven, because there's always the possibility, no matter how rigorous something is tested, that you could learn something new tomorrow which refines your understanding what you learned today. Everything is open to scrutiny.

 

[Gottservant]

???????????????????????????????????

A question, can easily be replaced with nothing.

 

[Heissonear]

Awesome. Evolution works really slow, so it doesn't work at all.

By the same logic, the himalayas are a plane field because they grow only a fraction of an inch per year.

That's the evolutionist perspective, it works so slow that:

1. There are no true "transition fossils" (I.e. horse with dog-like feet fossils that transition into hoof feet in the sequential strata)

2. Punctuated Equilibrium is just a recent Naturalist fad

.

 

[Heissonear]

We do tend to reject made up stories and fantasies. Why shouldn't we?

.

You need to shuffle your hands like a Card Dealer at a Vegas casino when you say that.

I'm a classroom prodigy of modern sedimentology and stratigraphy, with decades of oilfield basin geology. I hear "made up stories" from naturalistic geologist all the time when interpretating unusual stratigraphic events. For example, drilling through 5,000 feet of evaporites in the Black Sea region, and over 3,000 feet of evaporites offshore Brazil and in the Gulf of Mexico, which are mostly pure NaCl, is just common physical processes type events on earth over time.

Do you go to Vegas? I grew up there and watch the cards at all times.

.

 

[Heissonear]

Exactly what it says. All theories are tentative - they're subject to change in light of new data. Nothing is ever 100% proven, because there's always the possibility, no matter how rigorous something is tested, that you could learn something new tomorrow which refines your understanding what you learned today. Everything is open to scrutiny.

You Scientism purists bend over backwards to polish and cleanse your doctrine, the stuff you tell all to live by.

.

 

[Nithavela]

1. There are no true "transition fossils" (I.e. horse with dog-like feet fossils that transition into hoof feet in the sequential strata)

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There you go. Eohippus had proto-hoofs on their toes which graudally became true hooves.

There are also still species around with something in between a foot and hoof, like the hippopottamus.

Now, please realise that the formation of fossils is very rare, and finding them even rarer still, so you can't expect to find every intermediate form (We haven't been looking that long, either).

 

[WisdomTree]

The theory of Evolution is a scientific theory because it can be theoretically disproven.

 

[lasthero]

You Scientism purists bend over backwards to polish and cleanse your doctrine, the stuff you tell all to live by.

.

Is that it? Is that the best you've got? Bald assertions? Empty accusations of dogma?

I never told anybody to live by anything.

 

[lasthero]

I'm a classroom prodigy of modern sedimentology and stratigraphy, with decades of oilfield basin geology.

Can you go one day, JUST ONE DAY, without bringing up your qualifications in a conversation? I swear, every topic I ever see you in, you constantly reference back to the job you supposedly hold, as if by simply being what you are that makes everything you say completely trustworthy and as if qualifications are a substitute for having an actual argument.

It's really pathetic. Like this.

For example, drilling through 5,000 feet of evaporites in the Black Sea region, and over 3,000 feet of evaporites offshore Brazil and in the Gulf of Mexico, which are mostly pure NaCl, is just common physical processes type events on earth over time.

Do you explain how these processes are just common? Do you explain how they fit in with your view? No. They just do. Because you're stratigrapher, and you say so.

 

[Heissonear]

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There you go. Eohippus had proto-hoofs on their toes which graudally became true hooves.

There are also still species around with something in between a foot and hoof, like the hippopottamus.

Now, please realise that the formation of fossils is very rare, and finding them even rarer still, so you can't expect to find every intermediate form (We haven't been looking that long, either).

Nice try. No true evidence. You like to shuffle the cards ("facts") fast. I watch your handling of "facts".

A pick of a fossil from here and there and mix and match is not transition but best guesstimation. This is common practice, no? Naturalists have been doing this to the fossil record for years.

Show me the stratigraphic sequence of these fossils. Not the countryside
andguesstimations.

 

[Heissonear]

Is that it? Is that the best you've got? Bald assertions? Empty accusations of dogma?

I never told anybody to live by anything.

Just by coincidence you made the dogma statement on a Christian website? You like to defend and preach Scientism doctrine.

.

 

[Heissonear]

Can you go one day, JUST ONE DAY, without bringing up your qualifications in a conversation? I swear, every topic I ever see you in, you constantly reference back to the job you supposedly hold, as if by simply being what you are that makes everything you say completely trustworthy and as if qualifications are a substitute for having an actual argument.

It's really pathetic.

It is evident the Naturalists on this forum talk down to those who do not line up to their stern Scientism posts.

You need to look me in the eye when you post. I've been one of you and know who you are. This you dislike, just a little bit. You love offence and hate defense.

.
.

 

[bhsmte]

It is evident the Naturalists on this forum talk down to those who do not line up to their stern Scientism posts.

You need to look me in the eye when you post. I've been one of you and know who you are. This you dislike, just a little bit. You love offence and hate defense.

.
.

Heiss,

You really need to humble yourself a bit.

 

[Heissonear]

Do you explain how these processes are just common? Do you explain how they fit in with your view? No. They just do. Because you're stratigrapher, and you say so.

"For example, drilling through 5,000 feet of evaporites in the Black Sea region, and over 3,000 feet of evaporites offshore Brazil and in the Gulf of Mexico, which are mostly pure NaCl, is just common physical processes type events on earth over time."




Your reply to the quote above is wimpy. Are you confused?

What is the "evolution story" promoted for such evaporites? Again, how did they come about over geologic time bynatural processes?


.

 

[Loudmouth]

.

You need to shuffle your hands like a Card Dealer at a Vegas casino when you say that.

No, I don't.

Why shouldn't we reject fantasies and made up stories? Can you tell us?

I'm a classroom prodigy of modern sedimentology and stratigraphy, with decades of oilfield basin geology. I hear "made up stories" from naturalistic geologist all the time when interpretating unusual stratigraphic events.

No, you don't. You here hypotheses based on observations and known physical processes.

 

[Loudmouth]

You Scientism purists bend over backwards to polish and cleanse your doctrine, the stuff you tell all to live by.

.

This is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to project your own personal failings on to scientists.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nice try. No true evidence.

Only someone trying to run away from reality would state that fossils are not evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is evident the Naturalists on this forum talk down to those who do not line up to their stern Scientism posts.

So says the person suffering from a serious case of projection.

You ignore facts in order to cling to your dogmatic beliefs. In order to limit the problems this causes you when faced with real science, you try to falsely accuse others of also holding dogmatic beliefs. It's a rather pathetic attempt to make your faith based dogma seem valid.

 

[lasthero]

What is the "evolution story" promoted for such evaporites?

First off, that would be geology, and has nothing to do with any 'evolution story'.

Second off, you're a geographer, wouldn't you know?

Thirdly...

Evaporite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there something wrong with the explanation found here? Would you like to share with the class what asinine point you're getting at?

 

[lasthero]

It is evident the Naturalists on this forum talk down to those who do not line up to their stern Scientism posts.

Yeah, we're talking down to you, Mr. 'I'm a Classroom Prodigy'. Please.

You need to look me in the eye when you post.

Even if I could do that on this dinky computer that I can barely get to work with Skype half the time, I don't see what a staring contest would prove.

I've been one of you and know who you are.

You don't know me from Adam.

This you dislike, just a little bit.

I don't really care.