Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Loudmouth]

Fossil "evidence" or fossilized bones, are just a snapshot of the life of a particular animal or tree at that one moment of it's life. They cannot be used to form a time line or predict the animals siblings, predecessors, ancestry or offspring. Yet, these are the assumptions made and the TOE banks on the public and scientific community swallowing these as solid gold truths.

That is false. We can use fossil evidence to test the theory of evolution. The theory predicts that there had to be species in the past with a mixture of modern human and earlier ape characteristics. These fossils show that those predictions are accurate, and that the theory is supported.

If I took a litter of our pups, say five pups of a purebred litter. I kill one and bury it at the age of 1 month. Then another at 2 months and so on and make sure one is full grown dog.

Then I present the bones as the evolution of this animal. Who could dispute it?

Yes. We can differentiate between young and old individuals within a species.

Also, at what stage of growth do humans look like Australopithecines, or even H. erectus?

Evolution is the assumption and extrapolation of pin point snap shots of time in an organisms life and from that predicting the animals total cradle to grave biography, including it's family tree and continuing family tree.

It is interpolation, my friend. We have fossils with a mixture of modern human and earlier ape features. They are transitional. It is evidence for evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

They have good reasons for their rules. Some people cannot accept that other people have views different to those that they hold on to so tightly.They get irate if there is other views that leave their world in question.

You are projecting again.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They have good reasons for their rules. Some people cannot accept that other people have views different to those that they hold on to so tightly.They get irate if there is other views that leave their world in question.

I'll go half and half with you on that one. You can't really just be outright rude to a person because of their views (although I have seen a few posters who flaunt that rule and somehow get away with it).
Although when a person, such as yourself, continually expresses a view, without any evidence, in any shape or form, or continually refers to bogus and lying sites as 'evidence', other people should be allowed to call you out on it. A little bit of ridicule is fine, I will say, but obviously no-one is in the right to start saying outright nasty things to you.

 

[JacksBratt]

That is false. We can use fossil evidence to test the theory of evolution. The theory predicts that there had to be species in the past with a mixture of modern human and earlier ape characteristics. These fossils show that those predictions are accurate, and that the theory is supported.



Yes. We can differentiate between young and old individuals within a species.

Also, at what stage of growth do humans look like Australopithecines, or even H. erectus?



It is interpolation, my friend. We have fossils with a mixture of modern human and earlier ape features. They are transitional. It is evidence for evolution.

Interpolation Ok Interpolation. It is still not an observable fact. It is a bunch of bones. A static view. Past species lived and died. Just because they are similar shows no proof that we came from them in some earlier period and "morphed" into us today. Humans never look like Australopithecines. So what. There is no proof that we came from them either.

It is the dream of the evolutional forefathers to have everyone believe that this is a gospel truth. Yet, they are just slices of time with no proof of what happened before or after. Just bones from that one instant of time.

Like I said. The Puppy bones could be passed off as the evolution of a species and no one would be the wiser.... It proves nothing.

 

[James Wilson]

It was REFUTED by the scientific community. It was shown to be wrong.

I don't believe I have often encountered someone so absolutist and arrogant (who appointed you to speak for the entire scientific community?)

Around the 1900s plate tectonics was proposed and "shown to be wrong by the scientific community". Later on in the 20th Century, it was accepted by the majority of the scientific community. Your statement has easily been proven wrong. Stop pretending that science is monolithic. I've been inside the scientific community, participating in and reading about many hot and contentious debates with iconic scientists on both sides.

Maybe you're just an outsider who doesn't know about the rancorous contention ALL THE TIME within the scientific community.

I can give many more examples, but this should be enough. Lighten up.

 

[James Wilson]

I don't accept Humphrey's thesis because it was refuted by the facts. Einstein's approach has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

As I have stressed over and over, the Big Bang has NOTHING to do with measuring the age of the Earth, so I don't know why you keep going on about it.

The age of the universe puts a limit on the age of the Earth. How can the obvious elude you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Interpolation Ok Interpolation. It is still not an observable fact. It is a bunch of bones.

Bones are observable.

Past species lived and died.

The theory of evolution predicts what mixture of features those species should have had if evolution is true. Why can't we use the fossil observations to test that prediction?

Just because they are similar shows no proof that we came from them in some earlier period and "morphed" into us today.

Like I said, creationists refuse to address the fossil evidence. No matter how transitional a fossil looks, creationists will never accept it as evidence.

Humans never look like Australopithecines. So what.

It shows that your analogy doesn't apply. The transitional hominids are not infant versions of modern humans.

It is the dream of the evolutional forefathers to have everyone believe that this is a gospel truth. Yet, they are just slices of time with no proof of what happened before or after. Just bones from that one instant of time.

Yes, bones that have a mixture of human and ape features that should have existed during that time if evolution is true. That's called evidence.

Like I said. The Puppy bones could be passed off as the evolution of a species and no one would be the wiser.... It proves nothing.

And there it is again. Australopithecines are not infant humans.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't believe I have often encountered someone so absolutist and arrogant (who appointed you to speak for the entire scientific community?)

Humphrey's never even published his thesis in a peer reviewed journal. The only arrogance is in thinking that Humphrey somehow disproved the theory held by the entire physics community with a paper that Einstein would have ripped to pieces, and one that was never even published in a proper journal.

Around the 1900s plate tectonics was proposed and "shown to be wrong by the scientific community". Later on in the 20th Century, it was accepted by the majority of the scientific community. Your statement has easily been proven wrong. Stop pretending that science is monolithic. I've been inside the scientific community, participating in and reading about many hot and contentious debates with iconic scientists on both sides.

Humphrey's thesis has been refuted, many times over.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-unraveling-of-starlight-and-time

http://paleo.cc/ce/humphrey.htm

I can find more, if you like.

Maybe you're just an outsider who doesn't know about the rancorous contention ALL THE TIME within the scientific community.

I'm an insider, actually. There is debate in science, but that doesn't mean that every theory is true. Humphreys' thesis has been thoroughly refuted. Nothing more needs to be debated.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Let's take it a step further. If you accept the "Inflationary Universe" that Alan Guth wrote about in his book, this internationally known astrophysicist stated that there were stars outside of the Big Bang before it banged.

Do you have a quote or citation for this?

 

[JacksBratt]

Bones are observable.

Yes bones are observable. But, they cannot tell you how many brothers and sisters they had or what their grandfathers father looked like. They are just like a picture of a guy on a dock with a fishing rod. You know he is has a fishing rod but you don't know if he has caught anything, will catch anything or is stealing the fishing rod after pushing the fisherman in the lake.... We can all guess but that's it.

The theory of evolution predicts what mixture of features those species should have had if evolution is true. Why can't we use the fossil observations to test that prediction?

It predicts events period. Then saying if these events are true, evolution is true. However, there is no way to prove what is true. It is not observable other than joining a bunch of dot's to form an image and saying "this is the only possible image from those dots".

It's like having an apple fall into a fresh cow patty. Someone comes along and says "wow, cows swallow apples whole and cannot digest them.....You cannot prove they are wrong unless you have a whole lot of information that the observer doesn't have. You,,, have an old bone and write a book about the before and after of the owner of the bone.

Predictions, speculation, assumption and interpolation are not good enough for me to bank anything on.

Like I said, creationists refuse to address the fossil evidence. No matter how transitional a fossil looks, creationists will never accept it as evidence.

Yet you refuse to accept the existence of a race of giants when we have hundreds of intact skulls, photos of skeletons from all over the world, numerous news paper articles from credible publishers, seriously large constructed structures around the world that have baffled engineers as to how they could be built, ancient scripture from many era's of time, talking about how they came to be, and writings about what they did and how they affected history, stories from every culture around the globe, and ancient hieroglyphs depicting them in many functions of an ancient cultures life from creating large structures, pushing boats carrying blocks and being tended to by smaller beings.

We have all this and yet.....you scoff. Call me crazy, and criticize me for not believing you when you pick up two bones and say the ancestor of this small bone evolved into the creature that had this small bone....... believe me because I have evidence and know more than you....

It shows that your analogy doesn't apply. The transitional hominids are not infant versions of modern humans.

How do you know that they are even transitional. They have similarities to other bones so they transformed? Then you say YOU know what order they came in, what turned into what, who into who. It's still just similar bones like taking the bones of different dog skeletons or different aged dogs and saying that they are transitional....It's not proof, it's story making and assuming. Just because the mass of hive mind scientists agree..... and only then.... it becomes a gold standard of truth and don't you dare try to say they are wrong.

Of course the hominids are not infant humans. Only humans can have infant humans, lions have infant lions, sharks have infant sharks. Never has a species had a long line of offspring that in the end was a different species.

Yes, bones that have a mixture of human and ape features that should have existed during that time if evolution is true. That's called evidence.

It is still just different bones and no proof that one eventually turned into the other. All cars have steering wheels but my Honda didn't come from a long line of BMW's.

And there it is again. Australopithecines are not infant humans.

Very good and none of my ancestors were Australopithecines either.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes bones are observable. But, they cannot tell you how many brothers and sisters they had or what their grandfathers father looked like.

They can tell us what features they have which is all we need in order to test the theory of evolution.

It predicts events period. Then saying if these events are true, evolution is true. However, there is no way to prove what is true. It is not observable other than joining a bunch of dot's to form an image and saying "this is the only possible image from those dots".

That's how the scientific method works. You have a hypothesis that makes a prediction. You test to see if that prediction holds true.

All you are saying is that you reject the scientific method.

It's like having an apple fall into a fresh cow patty. Someone comes along and says "wow, cows swallow apples whole and cannot digest them.....You cannot prove they are wrong unless you have a whole lot of information that the observer doesn't have. You,,, have an old bone and write a book about the before and after of the owner of the bone.

Would it be safe to say that you would never accept any fossil as transitional, no matter what it looked like?

Predictions, speculation, assumption and interpolation are not good enough for me to bank anything on.

We have the evidence.

Yet you refuse to accept the existence of a race of giants when we have hundreds of intact skulls,

They weren't giants. Look at the faces, for crying out loud. THEY ARE THE SAME SIZE AS REGULAR HUMANS.

Of course the hominids are not infant humans.

Then your puppy analogy doesn't apply.

It is still just different bones and no proof that one eventually turned into the other. All cars have steering wheels but my Honda didn't come from a long line of BMW's.

Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy like life does.

Very good and none of my ancestors were Australopithecines either.

Prove it.

 

[JacksBratt]

They can tell us what features they have which is all we need in order to test the theory of evolution.

Test the theory with the rules of the theory.... hmm

That's how the scientific method works. You have a hypothesis that makes a prediction. You test to see if that prediction holds true.

Calling things "proof" because they say they are "proof" and that they are the only ones who are right,,, is not science.

All you are saying is that you reject the scientific method.

I'm saying I reject the "science" that evolution relies on to survive it's farce of a life.

Would it be safe to say that you would never accept any fossil as transitional, no matter what it looked like?

It would be impossible to prove that there was anything transitional with bones that can only tell you that that particular creature once lived. You cannot observe macro evolution with static bone pieces.

We have the evidence.

You have snap shots of the fact that a particular creature once lived, and died.

They weren't giants. Look at the faces, for crying out loud. THEY ARE THE SAME SIZE AS REGULAR HUMANS.

Of course they are. I'm just glad my head is not that size. Phewf, my neck would be huge but I would be intelligent enough to do something about it.

Same size,.... ya with a brain cavity twice the size but the skull is still the same size... New math?

Then your puppy analogy doesn't apply.

No, your transition analogy doesn't apply.

Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy like life does.

Oh no, not the nested hierarchy again......I've seen the arguments over this one go on forever.

 

[Loudmouth]

Test the theory with the rules of the theory.... hmm

Test the predictions made by the theory, just like the scientific method requires. Do you reject the scientific method?

Calling things "proof" because they say they are "proof" and that they are the only ones who are right,,, is not science.

They are evidence because they match the predictions made by the theory of evolution. It's called science. You should check into it.

I'm saying I reject the "science" that evolution relies on to survive it's farce of a life.

So all you have is name calling? You can't show how it does not meet the requirements of the scientific method?

It would be impossible to prove that there was anything transitional with bones that can only tell you that that particular creature once lived. You cannot observe macro evolution with static bone pieces.

Macroevolution is the hypothesis. YOU DON'T OBSERVE THE HYPOTHESIS. This is Science 101. Please learn how science works.

You use the observations, the fossils in this case, to TEST THE HYPOTHESIS.

You have snap shots of the fact that a particular creature once lived, and died.

Yes. The theory of evolution makes predictions about what hominids looked like in the past. It is that hypothesis that we are testing. it's called SCIENCE.

Of course they are. I'm just glad my head is not that size. Phewf, my neck would be huge but I would be intelligent enough to do something about it.

A giant would have a face that is bigger than a normal human. Those skulls do not. it is not a giant.

No, your transition analogy doesn't apply.

It isn't an analogy.

Oh no, not the nested hierarchy again......I've seen the arguments over this one go on forever.

I have seen creationists run from it forever, just as you are doing here.

 

[Loudmouth]

The age of the universe puts a limit on the age of the Earth. How can the obvious elude you?

The age of the Earth puts a lower limit on the age of the universe.

 

[JacksBratt]

Test the predictions made by the theory, just like the scientific method requires. Do you reject the scientific method?

I do when the "science" concludes that untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable events are said to be facts and taught as such in all educational facilities and anything that suggests otherwise is called bunk.

They are evidence because they match the predictions made by the theory of evolution. It's called science. You should check into it.

You keep stating that they are "evidence" while they are simple observations from which men have made predictions and assume and extrapolate to fit into the cookie cutter framework of the TOE.

Yes it is science. However it is the very first part where someone has an idea but nothing is observed to happen as suggested, nothing is being repeated or tested as it happens. Yet it is held as fact by many and if you state anything otherwise you are criticized.

So all you have is name calling? You can't show how it does not meet the requirements of the scientific method?

If it is a farce it is a farce. Otherwise it is a model or a suggestion that "this may have happened" It is not fact and should not be presented as such.

Macroevolution is the hypothesis. YOU DON'T OBSERVE THE HYPOTHESIS. This is Science 101. Please learn how science works.

You use the observations, the fossils in this case, to TEST THE HYPOTHESIS.

If over the last period of known history not one species has evolved into another species and you cannot prove that it happened before that because it is something that would have to be observed, the hypothesis will be infinitely difficult to prove and thus remains as just an idea, someones thought or better... a wish.
Finding different bones that are similar will only say that the animals were just that... similar. It can never "prove" that one became the other.

Yes. The theory of evolution makes predictions about what hominids looked like in the past. It is that hypothesis that we are testing. it's called SCIENCE.

Again, it is all science but with no conclusive evidence that any of this actually took place. Just surmising, wishing, hoping and predicting something that may have or may not have happened. At the end of the day it is still just a story.

A giant would have a face that is bigger than a normal human. Those skulls do not. it is not a giant.

Really? A face bigger than a normal human. I didn't know you knew so much about the physical appearance of these beings. And on what evidence to you base this? Do you base that on just taking the proportions of a human and scaling them up? Do you assume they looked just like human heads only bigger? Face it, the head is huge. The brain cavity is twice that of a human and the eye sockets are huge. If a normal size man had this head he would stand out like the hulk. Many articles also state the the sinus cavity is much larger than that of a human. This would allow for larger intake of air for breathing and that the beings could possibly have had very loud powerful voices. All of that is of course speculation as these are just bones.

It isn't an analogy.

Of course it is. You show bones of similar shapes and use the analogy that being A evolved into being B. I said that you could, in error, say the same thing about similar bones of one species that are from animals of the same species at different ages.

I have seen creationists run from it forever, just as you are doing here.

I'm not running from it. I truly believe that "nested Hierarchy" is proof of ID. God used similar traits because they serve the function well. So, arguing it over and over like I have seen before is futile.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do when the "science" concludes that untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable events are said to be facts and taught as such in all educational facilities and anything that suggests otherwise is called bunk.

What is not testable, observable, or repeatable about the mixture of human and ape features in those fossils?

You keep stating that they are "evidence" while they are simple observations from which men have made predictions and assume and extrapolate to fit into the cookie cutter framework of the TOE.

They don't assume that they fit the predictions of the theory of evolution. They DO fit the predictions made by the theory. When facts match the predictions of a theory, they are evidence in support of that theory. That's how science works.

Yes it is science. However it is the very first part where someone has an idea but nothing is observed to happen as suggested, nothing is being repeated or tested as it happens. Yet it is held as fact by many and if you state anything otherwise you are criticized.

The theory of evolution is not held as fact. It explains the facts. Those facts include the mixture of features found in fossils which exactly match what we should see if evolution is true.

If it is a farce it is a farce. Otherwise it is a model or a suggestion that "this may have happened" It is not fact and should not be presented as such.

I agree. It is not a fact. It is a theory supported by mountains of facts just like other widely accepted scientific theories.

If over the last period of known history not one species has evolved into another species . . .

Yes, they have.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

and you cannot prove that it happened before that because it is something that would have to be observed,

You don't observe the hypothesis. How many times do I need to go over this? If the hypothesis is that humans evolved from an ancestor shared with other apes, the scientific method does not require you to observe humans evolving from that common ancestor. Rather, the scientific method requires you to predict what observations you will make in the present, and then see if observations do match those predictions. Those predicted observations include the mixture of features in fossils. That's how the scientific method works.

the hypothesis will be infinitely difficult to prove and thus remains as just an idea, someones thought or better... a wish.

Why can't we test the hypothesis with fossils?

Finding different bones that are similar will only say that the animals were just that... similar. It can never "prove" that one became the other.

However, it can be evidence that supports the theory. That's how science works. When the observations match the theory, the theory is supported.

Really? A face bigger than a normal human.

Yes, really. Also, where is the rest of the skeleton? How tall were they? How broad were they?

I'm not running from it. I truly believe that "nested Hierarchy" is proof of ID. God used similar traits because they serve the function well. So, arguing it over and over like I have seen before is futile.

God could mix features from birds and mammals, and that would falsify the nested hierarchy. For example, there is nothing stopping an intelligent designer from creating a species with feathers and three middle ear bones. There is nothing stopping a designer from mixing genes from jellyfish, birds, and lizards which would clearly violate a nested hierarchy. It isn't just similar traits. It is the PATTERN of shared and derived features that make a nested hierarchy.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . .I truly believe that "nested Hierarchy" is proof of ID. God used similar traits because they serve the function well. So, arguing it over and over like I have seen before is futile.

But we've got things we inherited that aren't very useful. Like the coccyx. Clearly vestigial tails. Not so, chime in the ID creationist, it has uses . . . after all, things attach to it . . .

Well if the coccyx is so useful (all the apes have one) how come no animal that has an external tail has a coccyx? What a great chance for the intelligent designer to use that design! But its really a vestige of a tail, not an intelligent design, and the fact that no species has both coccyx and tail proves it.

 

[JacksBratt]

..deleted due to format problem

 

[JacksBratt]

But we've got things we inherited that aren't very useful. Like the coccyx. Clearly vestigial tails. Not so, chime in the ID creationist, it has uses . . . after all, things attach to it . . .

Well if the coccyx is so useful (all the apes have one) how come no animal that has an external tail has a coccyx? What a great chance for the intelligent designer to use that design! But its really a vestige of a tail, not an intelligent design, and the fact that no species has both coccyx and tail proves it.

Taken from http://www.innerbody.com/image_skelfov/skel38_new.html

Prepared by Tim Taylor, Anatomy and Physiology Instructor
The coccyx functions as a slightly flexible attachment point for several muscles in the pelvic region. The gluteus maximus muscle, a major extensor of the thigh at the hip, has one its origins along the coccyx. The levator ani and coccygeus muscles form the pelvic diaphragm that constricts the pelvic organs and helps us to delay defecation and urination. Finally, the coccyx helps to support the anus by holding the external anal sphincter in place via the anococcygeal ligament.

I think you will understand that this is not a useless body part as explained above.

You can have a coccygectomy just like you can have you gal bladder, reproductive organs, stomach, colon and spleen removed, none of which are vestigial organs or body parts.

I like mine and it's useful to me.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Taken from http://www.innerbody.com/image_skelfov/skel38_new.html

Prepared by Tim Taylor, Anatomy and Physiology Instructor
The coccyx functions as a slightly flexible attachment point for several muscles in the pelvic region. The gluteus maximus muscle, a major extensor of the thigh at the hip, has one its origins along the coccyx. The levator ani and coccygeus muscles form the pelvic diaphragm that constricts the pelvic organs and helps us to delay defecation and urination. Finally, the coccyx helps to support the anus by holding the external anal sphincter in place via the anococcygeal ligament.

I think you will understand that this is not a useless body part as explained above.

You can have a coccygectomy just like you can have you gal bladder, reproductive organs, stomach, colon and spleen removed, none of which are vestigial organs or body parts.

I like mine and it's useful to me.

You didn't deal with the part about no animal that has a tail ever has a coccyx.