Scientists' quotes

[Loudmouth]

I don't want to be argumentative or insulting, but you "guys" don't get it. You might mention that arguments from authority are fallacious,

If you look through my posts, I never made that argument. Perhaps you should address the arguments I did make?

that arguments from incredulity are fallacious, etc.

They are.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

The fact is, I don't care about all the reasons you give for why my anti-evolution stance is wrong. There's a hole in evolution that nobody addresses. If evolution were correct, it should lead us backward to *the* common ancestor of all life. The hole is, what was the "organism" that existed just prior to this common ancestor? You'll probably tell me that that is not in evolution's purview, but I think it is. The preceding "organism" is just as much the common ancestor of all life as the one you stop at. I am just taking it back one more generation, and yet all of a sudden everyone is mute on that.

What you seem to be complaining about is the fact that some things may always be unknown. When you move from religious dogma to a form of skepticism like science, you will always have gaps in your knowledge. That is how it works. Short of a time machine, we may never know what that previous generation before the universal common ancestor looked like.

However, does that cast doubt on the evidence that we do have for shared ancestry? No. To use an analogy, we don't have to know every single step and every single movement that a murder suspect makes at a crime scene in order to find evidence of guilt. We don't have to have complete knowledge of everything in order to have evidence for something. We don't need to know the exact genome of the universal common ancestor in order to have evidence for humans sharing a common ancestor with chimps.

 

[dysert]

Common ancestors and missing links are not necessary to see evolution. If evolution is false, would we not see all life forms that have ever existed in all layers of sedimentary strata?

I may be wrong, but I thought a basic tenet of ToE was that all life stems from a common ancestor?

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question.

 

[Loudmouth]

The question of whether or not the preceding organism even qualifies as an organism or as "alive" is another question altogether.

The last universal common ancestor already had an evolved genetic and metabolic system, so the expectation is that the preceding generations were most definitely organisms in every way.

 

[Loudmouth]

I may be wrong, but I thought a basic tenet of ToE was that all life stems from a common ancestor?

That is the hypothesis, not the tenet.

According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree.

If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity
​

As it turns out, all of the evidence is consistent with this hypothesis, so we tentatively conclude that there was a universal common ancestor. If the evidence falsified the hypothesis, then the theory of evolution would include multiple origins of life.

 

[RickG]

I may be wrong, but I thought a basic tenet of ToE was that all life stems from a common ancestor?

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question.

A common ancestor does not mean an individual, rather a population of individuals. As for answering my question. How would you explain the distribution of fossils throughout the layers of sedimentary strata without evolution. As previously stated, if evolution were false, we should see fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata throughout geologic time. How did they get where they are?

 

[dysert]

A common ancestor does not mean an individual, rather a population of individuals. As for answering my question. How would you explain the distribution of fossils throughout the layers of sedimentary strata without evolution. As previously stated, if evolution were false, we should see fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata throughout geologic time. How did they get where they are?

You might call me thick-headed (I've been called worse), but I don't understand how the distribution necessarily implies evolution. Couldn't the distribution have resulted simply by, as someone earlier said, "kind after kind"?

 

[Loudmouth]

You might call me thick-headed (I've been called worse), but I don't understand how the distribution necessarily implies evolution. Couldn't the distribution have resulted simply by, as someone earlier said, "kind after kind"?

Only evolution predicts that we should see a correlation between the ratio of specific isotopes in igneous rocks and the family of species found above and below those rocks. On a young Earth, or on an Earth where the fossil record was produced by a flood, we would not see this relationship.

 

[dysert]

Only evolution predicts that we should see a correlation between the ratio of specific isotopes in igneous rocks and the family of species found above and below those rocks. On a young Earth, or on an Earth where the fossil record was produced by a flood, we would not see this relationship.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[justlookinla]

So you are saying that we can't use naturalistic explanations for weather?

You folks sure try your best to shy away from creationism and evolution.

 

[RickG]

You might call me thick-headed (I've been called worse), but I don't understand how the distribution necessarily implies evolution. Couldn't the distribution have resulted simply by, as someone earlier said, "kind after kind"?

It has to do with the age of the sedimentary strata. Dinosaurs are found only in sedimentary strata of Mesozoic age only. There are no dinosaur fossils in Devonian, Cambrian, Eocene, or Pleistocene strata. The same is true for all life, both plant and animal. They are found only in sedimentary of a specific ages and never before or after those ages.

 

[dysert]

It has to do with the age of the sedimentary strata. Dinosaurs are found only in sedimentary strata of Mesozoic age only. There are no dinosaur fossils in Devonian, Cambrian, Eocene, or Pleistocene strata. The same is true for all life, both plant and animal. They are found only in sedimentary of a specific ages and never before or after those ages.

Hmm, now I'm confused again. Doesn't that just mean that the dinosaurs went extinct in the Mesozoic age? Then there were other life forms that emerged and went extinct in the Devonian age, etc.?

 

[RickG]

Hmm, now I'm confused again. Doesn't that just mean that the dinosaurs went extinct in the Mesozoic age? Then there were other life forms that emerged and went extinct in the Devonian age, etc.?

How did the dinosaurs get into the Mesozoic Era and no where else without evolution?

 

[dysert]

How did the dinosaurs get into the Mesozoic Era and no where else without evolution?

I believe the creationist answer would be that they were created during the Mesozoic Era.

ETA: After spending some time thinking about this and looking at other resources, I've come to believe that the answer I gave was stupid. I retract it.

 

[RickG]

I believe the creationist answer would be that they were created during the Mesozoic Era.

Enough games, have a nice day.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hmm, now I'm confused again. Doesn't that just mean that the dinosaurs went extinct in the Mesozoic age?

Why don't we find dinosaurs in terrestrial Cambrian deposits?

Then there were other life forms that emerged and went extinct in the Devonian age, etc.?

Life forms that emerge and go extinct over millions of years . . . sounds like evolution to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe the creationist answer would be that they were created during the Mesozoic Era.

God created millions and millions of species over hundreds of millions of years that just happen to exactly mimic what we would get from evolution?

 

[rockytopva]

If I had to pick an end time date I would go with the scientist, Isaac Newton...

“And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half.” –Daniel 12:7

From a folio cataloged as Yahuda MS 7.3g, f. 13v:

"So then the time times & half a time are 42 months or 1260 days or three years & an half, reckoning twelve months to a year & 30 days to a month as was done in the Calendar of the primitive year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of lived kingdoms, the period of 1260 days, if dated from the complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end A.C. 2060.” – Isaac Newton

As Charlemagne was crowned king on December 25, 800 by Pope Leo the III so the day of Christ's coming will be on Christmas Day, 2060. If the rapture of the saints (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) occurs seven years before the time of Christ’s coming the date of the rapture 12.25 2053. However… Isaac Newton notes…

“It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fancifull men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, & by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail. Christ comes as a thief in the night, & it is not for us to know the times & seasons which God hath put into his own breast." –Isaac Newton

That would be my favorite scientific quote.

 

[RickG]

God created millions and millions of species over hundreds of millions of years that just happen to exactly mimic what we would get from evolution?

In keeping with the comedy, God also embedded age into the 6,000 year old earth, 4.54 billion years worth. And let's not forget that Noah live in and built the Ark in New Jersey. After the flood he removed the flood waters to Neptune.

 

[Loudmouth]

In keeping with the comedy, God also embedded age into the 6,000 year old earth, 4.54 billion years worth. And let's not forget that Noah live in and built the Ark in New Jersey. After the flood he removed the flood waters to Neptune.

Why not have God embed a fake fossil record and be done with it?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Can we share quotes from any scientist?

I'm trying to figure out this one from Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno:

We are not split into a world of Spocks and Kirks. In each of us, the scientist does creative work out of the artistic side. The artist does detailed and technical work to bring out their creativity. That’s why it’s so human. That’s why you can’t have a machine do your science for you, or a machine painting your pictures.

I get the point he's making, but I'm not as familiar with those characters.

http://blog.syracuse.com/entertainment/2009/11/post_6.html