Evolution: What The Fossils Say

[TagliatelliMonster]

So when someone is asserting facts they can't also be explaining anything? If that's what you think then yes, I'm done.

"assertion" and "explanation" are two different words with different meanings and they are not the same.

Assertion:
noun
1.
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:

Explanation:
noun
1.
the act or process of explaining.
2.
something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable;


They are not the same. There's a very clear difference between both.

Thanks for the exercise in understanding the mind of an atheist.

I didn't require this conversation to understand the mind of theists like you.
I already knew it was like playing tennis against a wall. Nothing gets through.

 

[HitchSlap]

I presupposed God in the past because I wanted to know why I exist and He answered and continues to answer.

The explanation that I exist because of random material accidents, wasn't cutting it and even if it were true, it would render the question of 'why?' meaningless, but maybe that's what some people want. Maybe some don't want an explanation of why, they just want an explanation of how and if the how is random material accidents then they're fine with that.

Only you, can decide the "why."

 

[HitchSlap]

So when someone is asserting facts they can't also be explaining anything? If that's what you think then yes, I'm done.

Thanks for the exercise in understanding the mind of an atheist.

As you've said, assertions can be facts, or beliefs. So, by your own admission, assertions are only as good as the evidence that supports them.

 

[Chriliman]

"assertion" and "explanation" are two different words with different meanings and they are not the same.

Assertion:
noun
1.
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:

Explanation:
noun
1.
the act or process of explaining.
2.
something that explains; a statement made to clarify something and make it understandable;


They are not the same. There's a very clear difference between both.



I didn't require this conversation to understand the mind of theists like you.
I already knew it was like playing tennis against a wall. Nothing gets through.

Thanks for the assertive explanation.

Btw, you're not related to DogmaHunter are you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So when someone is asserting facts they can't also be explaining anything? If that's what you think then yes, I'm done.

You may be overdone...

It's really quite simple: an explanation has explanatory power; 'God-did-it' does not have explanatory power.

A simple 'X-did-it' claim can be a placeholder for an explanation (e.g. 'evolution-did-it'), but the 'God' concept is both inexplicable and ill-defined and raises more questions than it answers, so it can't explain anything.

You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

 

[quatona]

I'd like to know 'how' God creates everything just as much as you do.

Then you are waiting for the assertion "God did it" to eventually gain explanatory power, just like I do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you are waiting for the assertion "God did it" to eventually gain explanatory power, just like I do.

Then try "God did it by speaking the universe into existence."

 

[quatona]

Then try "God did it by speaking the universe into existence."

...because the mechanics of speaking stuff into existence are common knowledge...

Can you explain how you got that new car? - I spoke it into existence? - Ah, I see.

 

[AV1611VET]

...because the mechanics of speaking stuff into existence are common knowledge...

Not on this site.

But any child can tell you it was a miracle.

 

[Chriliman]

...because the mechanics of speaking stuff into existence are common knowledge...

Can you explain how you got that new car? - I spoke it into existence? - Ah, I see.

Who said he spoke stuff into existence? The proper interpretation of scripture says that God formed or prepared the heavens and the earth, meaning He used what already existed(material/time/space) and made it into something good and then said "Let there be light" and made us to be able to see and comprehend what He has made.

A car would not exist had there not been a human mind to think of the idea and convey it through speech and use existing material to create the car. We are indeed made in God's image.

 

[Astrophile]

God forming heaven and earth and life on earth is an explanation for origins of life on earth.

Can you show how God forming heaven and earth and life on earth is an explanation for the fossil record? After all, the fossil record is supposed to be the subject of this thread.

 

[quatona]

Not on this site.

But any child can tell you it was a miracle.

A child knows how to speak stuff into existence?

 

[quatona]

Who said he spoke stuff into existence?

AV did, and I responded to him.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, children do tend to have wild imaginations.

 

[In situ]

I'm curious as to what they are, since I'm such a believer in the fossil record being nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

AV you and I already discussed this a few time and why the connection are real. And I told you they are real due to inheritance . Inheritance is the base for how we determine paternity in court. Do you think a father-test is a "game of connect-the-dot" as well? If not why would the fossil record be it?

 

[In situ]

Right as rain, studied the fossils extensively and it's laughable how normal apes are passed off as proto¬human.

Why are you so obessed with evolution of apes, like the theory would stand and fall with it?

 

[mark kennedy]

Why are you so obessed with evolution of apes, like the theory would stand and fall with it?

Because of the abundance of scientific literature on the subject. I'm not obsessed, just focused on key aspects that directly address Darwinian logic.

 

[In situ]

Because of the abundance of scientific literature on the subject.

Abundance, in what respect is it abundant? What about the rest then?

I'm ... just focused on key aspects that directly address Darwinian logic.

No, you are not. (The origin of man was not even mention by Darwin in the first editions of Origin of Species).

 

[mark kennedy]

Abundance, in what respect is it abundant? What about the rest then?

Particularly comparative genomics, might try researching it sometime.

No, you are not. (The origin of man was not even mention by Darwin in the first editions of Origin of Species).

He also wrote a book called The Descent of Man. And as a matter of fact he does speak to the origin of man in the Preface to On the Origin of Species:

In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He (Lamarck) first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

If your going to defend Darwinism it might be advisable to learn more about it.

Why are you so obessed with evolution of apes, like the theory would stand and fall with it?

I'm not obsessed, the creation of life in general and man in particular occupies the central focus of the first and last chapters of the Bible. Evolution isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon. What you are calling 'the theory' is the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means, going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. Equivocating the two is fallacious at best.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

You may be overdone...

It's really quite simple: an explanation has explanatory power; 'God-did-it' does not have explanatory power.

A simple 'X-did-it' claim can be a placeholder for an explanation (e.g. 'evolution-did-it'), but the 'God' concept is both inexplicable and ill-defined and raises more questions than it answers, so it can't explain anything.

You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

Which is my whole problem with Darwinism. 'God-didn't-do-it' does not have explanatory power either.

Have a nice day
Mark