Lines of Evidence

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Hold on a sec. You might want to check the source material.

"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. "
The Origin of Species: Chapter 9
(last sentence of first paragraph)

He used "extreme imperfection" to describe the large time gaps between sediments, not fossils.

If the geologic record is extremely imperfect, then you will necessarily have a gappy fossil record.

Thanks for responding.

I just started reading DARWIN'S IMPERFECTION by Anastasia Thanukos (post 565) -- and will have a good look at the link you've provided, from TALK ORIGINS: THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES: Chapter 9: On The Imperfection of the Geological Record by CHARLES DARWIN (here)

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I think it's because God boost our brain power somehow.

Doveaman,

That is dangerously prejudicial statement.

Granted you may have been given grace to believe in God the Father, the Almighty* -- but I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this doesn't make you into a super-human. Nice try, but I think you need to lance that black-head, before it explodes like the guy in "Scanners"

---
*The Apostle's Creed

 

[Loudmouth]

It also doesn't take into consideration natural variations within the same species. They have found skulls from one species with variations that would just about cover the entire bottom row of shapes in that skull picture showing transitions.

A variation of a transitional species is still a transitional. Finding 3 different variations of H. erectus in no way puts the transitional nature of H. erectus in doubt. All of those fossils have a mixture of ape and modern human features which makes them transitional. What you failed to point out is that none of those variations were consistent with H. sapiens.

Some young dinos will have a few vastly different features of their parents and therefore evolutionists make them a new transitional. They will see the similarities but make them a new species because of the differences. But then later the bones are tested and they are found to be younger versions of the same species.

Do young dinos look more like feathered birds? Do young dinos have wings and feathers when they are young, and then lose them to become huge dinosaurs?

A lot of the evidence for ape man are based on very one or two features. The position of a thigh bone as it sits in the thigh joint. Or the positions of other bones when pieced back together. Its up for interpretation and when an evolutionists wants something to be transitional they already have a pre conceived idea of what they want.

Then what should they be looking at to determine if a fossil is transitional or not? What features would a fossil need to have in order for YOU to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with apes?

 

[Doveaman]

Your dogmatic belief in mankind descending from Adam is inconsistant with objective reality. You need a new belief that is consistant with reality, because you cannot change reality.

There is no reality is science, only theories invented to explain reality. I reject your explanation of reality in favor of my own.

 

[Doveaman]

It's a shame that this 'godboost' is insufficient for you to make some convincing arguments in this forum.

Maybe you need a boost.

 

[bhsmte]

There is no reality is science, only theories invented to explain reality. I reject your explanation of reality in favor of my own.

Is there reality in your own explanation? If so, what is that reality based on?

 

[Doveaman]

You mean like voices? You head God speak in your head and tell you that the bible is the word of God?

It's more of a conviction. He convinced my mind that the bible is the word of God. I have no choice but to believe it is true, just like you have no choice but to believe you are alive.

 

[Doveaman]

Is there reality in your own explanation?

Yes.

If so, what is that reality based on?

The Bible.

Jesus really did rise from the dead even if science says it is impossible.

 

[[serious]]

It's more of a conviction. He convinced my mind that the bible is the word of God. I have no choice but to believe it is true, just like you have no choice but to believe you are alive.

Ok, so the chain is:
It's true because the bible says it
The bible is true because it's infallible
The bible is infallible because it's the word of god
The bible is the word of God because God told me
By God told me, I mean he made me really sure that I'm right.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes.
The Bible.

Jesus really did rise from the dead.

How does writing a story down in a book make the story true?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes.
The Bible.

Jesus really did rise from the dead.

Ok. If that works for you that is fine.

With that said, you claim there is no reality in science and you reject the theories that come from the same.

If that is your position, I am sure you can understand, how some will disagree that the bible provides a more reliable reality, then science.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Is there reality in your own explanation? If so, what is that reality based on?

Dove a man's statement: 'There is no reality is science, only theories invented to explain reality. ....'

I suspect he meant to say 'There is no reality in science, ....'

'....According to the founding father of the history of science,George Sarton (1884–1956), the “main purpose” of science, pursued by disinterested scholars, was “the discovery of truth.” Convinced that science was the only human activity that “is obviously and undoubtedly cumulative and progressive,” he described the history of science as “the story of a protracted struggle, which will never end, against the inertia of superstition and ignorance, against the liars and hypocrites, and the deceivers and the self-deceived, against all the forces of darkness and nonsense.” [George Sarton, The History of Science and the New Humanism] ....' excerpt from the introduction to Dr. Dennis Alexander's book entitled Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins

 

[bhsmte]

Dove a man's statement: 'There is no reality is science, only theories invented to explain reality. ....'

I suspect he meant to say 'There is no reality in science, ....'

IMO, I tend to think, Doveman is stating; he doesn't care for the realities that scientific evidence leads to.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

IMO, I tend to think, Doveman is stating; he doesn't care for the realities that scientific evidence leads to.

That is immensely frustrating, with so much co-operation being achieved in this regard -- in these very exciting times.
I've learned more over the last ten years, than I've learned in my entire life and a lot of it has to do with opening up to good science.
I like to think that we're doing here in 'Lines of Evidence' (and of course long before I came here) -- is good science. Forgive me for being so optimistic, but it's in my nature to try and focus on positive stuff. Most of the time.

 

[bhsmte]

That is immensely frustrating, with so much co-operation being achieved in this regard -- in these very exciting times.
I've learned more over the last ten years, than I've learned in my entire life and a lot of it has to do with opening up to good science.
I like to think that we're doing here in 'Lines of Evidence' (and of course long before I came here) -- is good science. Forgive me for being so optimistic, but it's in my nature to try and focus on positive stuff. Most of the time.

Here is reality:

More and more people accept well evidenced science, as they are educated on the same. Those who have religious beliefs, will either adjust their religious beliefs to accommodate these realities, or they may abandon them altogether. World wide statistics on the state of religious beliefs, will support this trend.

But, when you have some who have more fundamentalist beliefs, that are extremely important for them to protect, they will indeed do what is necessary to protect those beliefs. We see that behavior on these boards each and every day.

 

[Gracchus]

Forgive me for being so optimistic, but it's in my nature to try and focus on positive stuff. Most of the time.

I needn't forgive you. Error, ignorance and delusion can be instructive.
Focusing on "the positive stuff" is comforting. It is what most religious people do. It doesn't even have to be real stuff to comfort, and so, convince. Reality, however, requires both positive and negative stuff. When you think about it, it could not be otherwise.

If human beings had everything but strawberry ice cream they would be miserable because they had no strawberry ice cream. If they had something wonderful, that almost no one ever has, and it went away, as wonderful (and terrible!) things do, they would mourn the loss of the wonderful just as much as they mourn the terrible.

I would refer you to the "four noble truths" of Buddhism, but the mods might take that as an attempt to proselytize for a non-Christian religion, which is forbidden on these forums.

 

[Split Rock]

There is no reality is science, only theories invented to explain reality.

That's actually quite true. However, the best way to understand physical reality is via science.

I reject your explanation of reality in favor of my own.

You reject man's combined knowledge of biology, geology, astronomy, linguistics, paleontology and anthropology in favor of your religious dogma. That's fine but it isn't reality.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Why does this remind me of a conversation I had before? Dejavu?

I would refer you to the "four noble truths" of Buddhism, but the mods might take that as an attempt to proselytize for a non-Christian religion, which is forbidden on these forums.

Oh, I'm a pretty centered person (generally) -- but I do enjoy joy when he comes along. I'm not sure why you felt the urge to do this, but I have zero problem with you sharing your Buddhist insights. In fact I think that Jesus and Buddha might have shared much in common, and in fact a proper understanding of many things relative to the human experience are contained in the wisdom of the enchanted chubby chappy. Dejavu

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Those who have religious beliefs, will either adjust their religious beliefs to accommodate these realities, or they may abandon them altogether.

Certainly. For some it's harder than others, but for those who are motivated by a hunger for what is true -- there is a lovely synthesis.

It can be very frightening for some, and if one pushes too hard -- they will run away and hide. It's especially true when I've witnessed husbands and wives end up fighting on either end of this divide, because they cannot appreciate the importance of respecting each others spiritual journey. Not everyone moves at the same speed, and some move too fast and find they have nothing left.

Joy is a fruit on a very special tree.

 

[bhsmte]

Certainly. For some it's harder than others, but for those who are motivated by a hunger for what is true -- there is a lovely synthesis.

It can be very frightening for some, and if one pushes too hard -- they will run away and hide. It's especially true when I've witnessed husbands and wives end up fighting on either end of this divide, because they cannot appreciate the importance of respecting each others spiritual journey. Not everyone moves at the same speed, and some move too fast and find they have nothing left.

Joy is a fruit on a very special tree.

This is all driven by personal psychology and our personal psychological needs can change as we mature.