Seeing fossils without the Evolution goggles

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but it would be a lot more difficult to find acceptance with a mass audience if Evolution were described that accurately.

"Hey you know that fossil order record we've been preaching for decades as knock-out proof of universal common ancestry? Well... to tell the truth.... it could have been scrambled totally different and we'd still tell you it was proof of Evolution..."

It's like a used car salesman admitting that he would have tried to sell you his car no matter what quality it was in. The truth can be harmful to customer relations.

Actually it is DNA that is knockout proof for evolution. Do you remember how creationists were sure that DNA would refute evolution? In fact the only valid odds argument that I have seen in regards to this topic are those on the evolution side when discussing endogenous retroviruses. Creationists have to pretend that they do not exist.

 

[pitabread]

It's like a used car salesman admitting that he would have tried to sell you his car no matter what quality it was in. The truth can be harmful to customer relations.

All you are doing is creating a strawman representation of biological evolution that has nothing to do with the reality of the science.

In effect, you've become the used car salesman.

(That used cars salesman analogy is really apt when it comes to describing professional creationists. They've made a business out of misleading the public about science.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, but it would be a lot more difficult to find acceptance with a mass audience if Evolution were described that accurately.

As others have pointed out, your description is not accurate.

As the-fact-that-others-have-pointed-this-out points out, your persistent inaccuracy in the face of correction shows you could have a fine career as a professional anti-evolutionist.

 

[lifepsyop]

I think I see it now. You're not railing against The Theory of Evolution. You're railing against naturalism.

Yes, but more specifically demonstrating how the Theory of Evolution is essentially 'applied naturalism', or in other words, the naturalistic ideology when applied to biology. Assume naturalism, and then go digging for fossils in the rocks of a planet, and whatever you find is automatically going to be filtered through the lens of Evolution. It's a self-evidently logical connection.

The ideology will produce a theory. It is practically an inevitability.

This reality is unsettling to Evolutionists because it is a far different picture than is painted to the public.

Fossils are claimed to be one of the theory's main foundations of evidence, but we can see (even if it's uncomfortable to admit) that this is largely illusory, because an established set of fossil data will always offer a potential evolutionary story to paint with it. The Evolutionary Idea, is too broad of a brush to be caught up by gaps or anachronisms in the data.

 

[pitabread]

Assume naturalism, and then go digging for fossils in the rocks of a planet, and whatever you find is automatically going to be filtered through the lens of Evolution.

Naturalism isn't the same thing as evolution. You're continually conflating these concepts and thus leading yourself to completely erroneous conclusions.

This reality is unsettling to Evolutionists because it is a far different picture than is painted to the public.

The only thing that is unsettling is how creationists continuously misrepresent the biological sciences and engage in denialism.

And as we've seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, science denialism can have fatal consequences.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, but more specifically demonstrating how the Theory of Evolution is essentially 'applied naturalism', or in other words, the naturalistic ideology when applied to biology. Assume naturalism, and then go digging for fossils in the rocks of a planet, and whatever you find is automatically going to be filtered through the lens of Evolution. It's a self-evidently logical connection.

The ideology will produce a theory. It is practically an inevitability.

This reality is unsettling to Evolutionists because it is a far different picture than is painted to the public.

Fossils are claimed to be one of the theory's main foundations of evidence, but we can see (even if it's uncomfortable to admit) that this is largely illusory, because an established set of fossil data will always offer a potential evolutionary story to paint with it. The Evolutionary Idea, is too broad of a brush to be caught up by gaps or anachronisms in the data.

No, that wouldn't work the way you think because there are too many independent lines of evidence which would have to be reconciled. But even so, the fossil evidence is consistent with (i.e. it is confirms but does not 'prove") the evolutionary narrative. What have you got? You have no plausible narrative of your own. All you have done so far is to attempt to undermine evolution by painting it as metaphysical naturalism. But this discussion board is not about the existence of God--some of us are theists, even Christians--so it is not really a relevant topic for this forum.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes, but more specifically demonstrating how the Theory of Evolution is essentially 'applied naturalism'

Why isn't Lamarckism applied naturalism? Or any of the other competing naturalistic theories that lost out to evolution as we now understand it?

The reason of course is that evolution remains the best scientific explanation for the phenomena. Not that it is forced upon us by the scientific worldview.

 

[tas8831]

Not this guy again...

 

[tas8831]

Guess the author:

"Evolution is just terrible non-falsifiable pseudo-science. and the evolution industry proves this every day by refusing to publicly debate critics, and basically using a non-stop propaganda campaign to frame any criticism of evolution as an "anti-science" religious conspiracy. So, in this regard, there is a constant witch-hunt for any scientist (and there are thousands) daring to criticize the premise that random mutations and natural selection produced the biodiversity on Earth. Such criticism is banned and carefully guarded against. Evolutionists are terrified of open and honest debate.

Heliocentrism, on the other hand, doesn't appear to be guarded at all. It is thought to be basically proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Even most creationists won't question it, so there aren't really any resources devoted to defending it. Reading those papers by Popov made me think about how the case for Geocentrism is just flying out of left-field (thinking about the CMB papers, too) and nobody is really prepared for it. It's like a surprise attack. People aren't taking Geocentrism seriously because we've all been so thoroughly indoctrinated into Pythagorean Apollo Sun God Worship

"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but more specifically demonstrating how the Theory of Evolution is essentially 'applied naturalism', or in other words, the naturalistic ideology when applied to biology. Assume naturalism, and then go digging for fossils in the rocks of a planet, and whatever you find is automatically going to be filtered through the lens of Evolution. It's a self-evidently logical connection.

The ideology will produce a theory. It is practically an inevitability.

This reality is unsettling to Evolutionists because it is a far different picture than is painted to the public.

Fossils are claimed to be one of the theory's main foundations of evidence, but we can see (even if it's uncomfortable to admit) that this is largely illusory, because an established set of fossil data will always offer a potential evolutionary story to paint with it. The Evolutionary Idea, is too broad of a brush to be caught up by gaps or anachronisms in the data.

And applied naturalism is how we know that the Earth is not flat. How we know that the Earth rotates around the Sun and not vice versa. Applied naturalism allowed us to understand the natural laws well enough to make the computer, phone, or tablet that you are using to connect to this forum. Applied naturalism tells us what is real.

So what is wrong with that?

 

[AV1611VET]

So what is wrong with that?

Nothing ... as long as applied naturalism doesn't contradict the Bible.

Until then, it can make all the computers, cell phones, and tablets it wants to.

God has gifted us great men of science.

 

[lifepsyop]

No, that wouldn't work the way you think because there are too many independent lines of evidence which would have to be reconciled. But even so, the fossil evidence is consistent with (i.e. it is confirms but does not 'prove") the evolutionary narrative.

Yes, but fossils are claimed to be one of the main lines of that evidence, which is false. So why put so much faith in the other supposed "lines of evidence" ?

In any case you will keep running into the same problem, the same naturalistic ideology imposed onto the interpretation of data. An evolutionary narrative is a predetermined conclusion and the philosophical foundation of the academic institutions. (and has been since their inception)

As I've mentioned before. It's exactly like the behavior YEC organizations, and how all of their theorizing and modeling is bound to a Genesis worldview of history. The only difference is that evolutionists pretend to be objective referees, constantly testing their worldview.

What have you got? You have no plausible narrative of your own.

I have the testimony of Jesus Christ and God's Word, which is the everlasting truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing ... as long as applied naturalism doesn't contradict the Bible.

Until then, it can make all the computers, cell phones, and tablets it wants to.

God has gifted us great men of science.

You are conflating your personal interpretation of the Bible with "The Bible". By the standard you use the fact that the Earth is a globe contradicts the Bible.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I have the testimony of Jesus Christ and God's Word, which is the everlasting truth.

That’s great. So how are you going to prove that ?

 

[AV1611VET]

You are conflating your personal interpretation of the Bible with "The Bible".

Whose personal interpretation should I conflate It with then?

Academias?

I'd rather eat glue first.

By the standard you use the fact that the Earth is a globe contradicts the Bible.

Oh, so now I incorporate poetic phrases from the Bible into my cosmology?

Anything else you think I do, that I don't?

 

[lifepsyop]

Why isn't Lamarckism applied naturalism? Or any of the other competing naturalistic theories that lost out to evolution as we now understand it?

What do you understand about evolution, I wonder?

The reason of course is that evolution remains the best scientific explanation for the phenomena. Not that it is forced upon us by the scientific worldview.

Evolution is the only explanation fitting with a naturalistic worldview. It *is* the naturalistic worldview by another name. It can come in many flavors, just as long as mother nature is given the credit. The public, obviously, will always be served what is figured to be the most palatable flavor at the time.

It has to be a pretty good story to convince people that wandering stardust turned into fish, and fish turned into human beings who debate about their origins on the internet. When people no longer believe in God, they will believe in anything.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Evolution is the only explanation fitting with a naturalistic worldview.

Lamarckian inheritance is perfectly naturalistic. It just happens to be contradicted by the facts, so it has been rightly discarded as a potential theory of biology.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, but fossils are claimed to be one of the main lines of that evidence, which is false. So why put so much faith in the other supposed "lines of evidence" ?

How much faith do you think I put in them? The theory of evolution iis merely a theory, accepted provisionally until a better theory comes along.

In any case you will keep running into the same problem, the same naturalistic ideology imposed onto the interpretation of data. An evolutionary narrative is a predetermined conclusion and the philosophical foundation of the academic institutions. (and has been since their inception)

Yes, data collected from the natural world will generally result in a naturalistic explanation. Why is that a problem?

As I've mentioned before. It's exactly like the behavior YEC organizations, and how all of their theorizing and modeling is bound to a Genesis worldview of history. The only difference is that evolutionists pretend to be objective referees, constantly testing their worldview.




I have the testimony of Jesus Christ and God's Word, which is the everlasting truth.

I understand YECs, basing their position on a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts. But you claim not to be a YEC. What's your story? You've been pretty shy about what you think happened.

 

[Speedwell]

It can come in many flavors, just as long as mother nature is given the credit. The public, obviously, will always be served what is figured to be the most palatable flavor at the time.

I'm inclined to gve God the credit, as creator of "mother" nature.

It has to be a pretty good story to convince people that wandering stardust turned into fish, and fish turned into human beings who debate about their origins on the internet. When people no longer believe in God, they will believe in anything.

This looks like more dishonest argumentation. What has believing in God to do with evolution?

 

[Caliban]

Mmmhmmm.... I'm familiar with that mantra... but this is a discussion forum. You have to do a little more than just make assertions. Reading and responding to arguments in the OP is a good starting place.

I am not making an assertion--that's actually how the scientific method works. Assumptions are worthless in science. You are attacking a straw man.