The great fossil illusion

[Stormy]

Morat: I did not mean to indicate that you have been impolite to me. That is not true. You have tried to be helpful. I have researched mainly on the Internet, basically on pro-evolution sites. I know that they would be the best place to find the proof that I seek. For you are wrong when you say that I desire to reject evolution. I wish very much to understand how God created. But I will not just fall in line and believe something. Fearing that if I do not people, like you, will think that I am dumb or ignorant.

That would be dumb!

The proof is not there. You can say it is all you want, but it is not! All that exist is scientific jargon and fake drawings of what would be supportive if actually found.

I feel like the kid in that story that laughed because the king was naked!

 

[choccy]

The proof is not there. You can say it is all you want, but it is not All that exist is scientific jargon and fake drawings of what would be suppor
tive if actually found.

May I ask what the fake drawings are, and how do you know that they are fake? Could you give us a couple of examples? And I'm gonna have to add my favorite nitpick at the end. There is no proof of evolution and there never will be. There is however evidence, and lots of it. I think that's an important distinction to have in mind. Sciencce doesn't offer proof, only evidence.

Choccy

 

[Morat]

The proof is not there. You can say it is all you want, but it is not! All that exist is scientific jargon and fake drawings of what would be supportive if actually found.

   Jargon is used because scientific jargon is precise. If you don't understand it, one of us probably does and would be happy to break it down for you.

   As for "fake drawings", that's quite an accusation. It is, in fact, libelous. Those drawings are of extant fossils (if they aren't, it is clearly labeled). Drawings are used for the simple reason that most people are utterly unqualified to look at a fossil and see anything other than a funny-looking rock.

   I open the hood of my car, and it's an utter mystery to me. I can identify some parts, sure. But a decent mechanic can glance at a single engine and ID the make and year, what models it's found in. I couldn't.

   Same with fossils. Those drawings are there so that the important bits are highlighted, and easier for the untrained eye to see.

   Calling them "liars", without evidence that they are, is a heavy claim. You should support it or retract it.

 

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Stormy
Morat: I did not mean to indicate that you have been impolite to me. That is not true. You have tried to be helpful. I have researched mainly on the Internet, basically on pro-evolution sites. I know that they would be the best place to find the proof that I seek. For you are wrong when you say that I desire to reject evolution. I wish very much to understand how God created. But I will not just fall in line and believe something. Fearing that if I do not people, like you, will think that I am dumb or ignorant.

I don't think evolutionist sites are the best place to learn about evolution. Mostly they just try to clear up and rebutt Creationist misconceptions about the theory. And I think trying to learn something about a very deep and complex subject on a online discussion board is an even worse idea.

I don't see how you can just summarily reject the entire work of thousands of scientists over a century of time from a few days of reading on a online forum and evolution sites. It's like trying to learn calculus or trigonometry in a week on an online forum. It doesn't work!

If you really want to understand evolution, consider picking up a textbook or an introduction to evolution book, such as "The Blind Watchmaker." That's the best, and pretty much only way that the average layman can get a workable understanding of evolution. I can give you other book recommendations, if you're really interested in understanding.

 

[Lanakila]

Or Even Darwin's Black Box by Behe. The more I read and study evolution the more unlikely it seems too. But, then I have a bias and I admit it.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Lanakila
Or Even Darwin's Black Box by Behe. The more I read and study evolution the more unlikely it seems too. But, then I have a bias and I admit it.

Sure, that too. Read both sides of the story. I'd also recommend "Finding Darwin's God" by Kennneth Miller. He's a Christian evolutionist who finds the theory to compliment the Bible, instead of contradicting it. And his book explains why.

 

[blader]

Actually, I think Stormy would like Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." Behe's shares very similar views that Stormy did about evolution. He accepts the general theory overall, but he insists that some parts were designed. Here's what Kenneth Miller said about Behe's work, very interesting:

"Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe's "Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, "scientific creationists" should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had "much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us (1)," that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a "common ancestor." In plain language, this means that Michael Behe and I share an evolutionary view of the natural history of the Earth and the meaning of the fossil record; namely, that present-day organisms have been produced by a process of descent with modification from their ancient ancestors. Behe is clear, firm, and consistent on this point. For example, when Michael and I engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry. Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species."

http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.html

 

[Lanakila]

New species, yes. We don't disagree on that either that is microevolution.

 

[Stormy]

May I ask what the fake drawings are, and how do you know that they are fake?

Choccy: I mean they are fake drawings as opposed to real pictures of actual fossils.

And I'm gonna have to add my favorite nitpick at the end. There is no proof of evolution and there never will be. There is however evidence, and lots of it. I think that's an important distinction to have in mind. Sciencce doesn't offer proof, only evidence.

With evidence comes proof within the mind of the one who sees the evidence. I have yet to see evidence that would support the drastic claims of evolution.

Show it to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Stormy


Choccy: I mean they are fake drawings as opposed to real pictures of actual fossils.

Is a drawing of something automatically "fake?" Which drawings were fake and how do you know they are?

With evidence comes proof within the mind of the one who sees the evidence. I have yet to see evidence that would support the drastic claims of evolution.

Show it to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...8667352/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-0148930-9761620

And here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/068482471X/ref=pd_sim_books/002-0148930-9761620

 

[Morat]

Choccy: I mean they are fake drawings as opposed to real pictures of actual fossils.

  They could only be fake if they misrepresented the fossils. Are you accusing scientists of a conspiracy based on fraud? Where is your evidence of this?

With evidence comes proof within the mind of the one who sees the evidence. I have yet to see evidence that would support the drastic claims of evolution.

Show it to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  We did. You dismissed it out of hand as "jargon" and made unbased accusations of fraud.

   That makes me suspicious that you will reject all evidence that doesn't fit your preconcieved (if denied) notions. If you'd like to go through the Common Descent link step by step, or just choose two or three (paleogenes are good) to discuss, that's fine.

   But handwaving it away because you don't understand the language, and making baseless accusations isn't the way to do it.

 

 

[Stormy]

Jargon is used because scientific jargon is precise. If you don't understand it, one of us probably does and would be happy to break it down for you.

I understand more than you think. I do not need anything explained and I do not believe something without proof just because it sounds good. OK??

As for "fake drawings", that's quite an accusation. It is, in fact, libelous. Those drawings are of extant fossils (if they aren't, it is clearly labeled). Drawings are used for the simple reason that most people are utterly unqualified to look at a fossil and see anything other than a funny-looking rock.

But at the same time an evolutionist can look at funny looking rock and imagine whatever fill the gaping holes in his theories.

Calling them "liars", without evidence that they are, is a heavy claim. You should support it or retract it.

First you will have to show me where I called them liars. I said "fake" pictures. I was hoping to actually see a find and instead I was met with a drawing!

 

[Stormy]

Morat: This is a waste of both of our time. I will not be drawn into worthless debates. If anyone fines a link with some real evidence, please post it for me. It does not matter how technical it is.

 

[Morat]

I understand more than you think. I do not need anything explained and I do not believe something without proof just because it sounds good. OK??

  You complain because it's jargon, and then you complain when someone offers to help you with it.

  What exactly is your problem?

  As for evidence, that nifty link had footnotes at the bottom, remember? Primary source materials. You know, in case people wish to verify his statements.

   So, to wit, you've been given evidence. Evidence which you now reject, but didn't actually track back the source.

   So, since you didn't bother to read the source materials, on what basis are you rejecting it?

But at the same time an evolutionist can look at funny looking rock and imagine whatever fill the gaping holes in his theories.

  Another accusation of fraud. Admittedly, more subtle fraud. Is this how you avoid looking at the evidence? Start screaming "Lies!" at the top of your voice?

   Is there some reason you don't want to discuss the evidence? You seem to be going out of your way to avoid discussing it. You prefer to dismiss it, it appears, rather then discuss it.

   Why?

First you will have to show me where I called them liars. I said "fake" pictures. I was hoping to actually see a find and instead I was met with a drawing!

  "Fake pictures" can only be interpreted as fraudulent drawings or doctored photographs. Had you meant drawings, instead of photographs of fossils, you should have stated "drawings". "Fake" has a very specific connotation.

  If I'm not mistaken, a phot of Archy was given on this very thread. You said nothing.

  And, of course, you refuse to address your lack of expertise in dealing with fossils. A friend of mine is a paleontologist (well, when his finishes his degree next year). When I went to visit him, he took me to where he was working. I got to see a rather nice fossil whale, partway through cleaning and documentation.

  It had tear ducts. Once they were pointed out to me, they were undeniable. But never in a thousand years would I have seen it without training.

 

 

[Morat]

Morat: This is a waste of both of our time. I will not be drawn into worthless debates. If anyone fines a link with some real evidence, please post it for me. It does not matter how technical it is.

  Someone did. You dismissed it out of hand with complaints of "jargon" and "fake pictures".

   Here it is again. There are 29 seperate and independent lines of evidence. Where do you want to start?

  How about with Section Four dealing with molecular evidence? I find both protein redundancy and transposons to be quite compelling.

  Then, of course, there's the Cytochrome C chart Nick so helpfully pasted on another thread.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Stormy


I understand more than you think. I do not need anything explained and I do not believe something without proof just because it sounds good. OK??

If you did not need anything explained, then I wonder why you complained about "jargon." I think I can safely say that I've read a lot more about evolution than the average person, but quite often I read things that I need explained (especially on talk.origins). But I guess you're different?

But at the same time an evolutionist can look at funny looking rock and imagine whatever fill the gaping holes in his theories.

They prefer to be called "paleontologists." There's no such thing as an "evolutionist" in the scientific community, anymore than there is are "round earthers" or "newtonian gravitationalists."

If you really think that paleontologists work by looking at a weird rock and conjuring up a pretty face out of thin air, while the rest of scientific community naively, unquestioningly accepts the product of a single paleontologist's imagination like seven year olds, then I think you vastly underestimate the intelligence of the scientific community. You make them sound like idiots. I'm pretty sure that they're not.

First you will have to show me where I called them liars. I said "fake" pictures. I was hoping to actually see a find and instead I was met with a drawing!

How can you fake a picture and not be a liar?

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by npetreley
Which surely explains why you can't FIND examples from invertebrates...they're just not interesting enough to find them, I guess, even if they do comprise the vast majority of the fossil record.

Uh, Nick? If you check the "challenge" topic, you will note that I pointed you to a book on Amazon. Yes, there is an entire book on invertebrate evolution. If you think that a school textbook has been written on invertebrate evolution without showing any examples of invertebrate evolution, I know not how I can help you.

 

[Stormy]

What I do not understand the most is how what I think of evolution is affecting the lot of you!

You deny that it has consumed you as a god but yet you are so angry because I think it is false.

What's the big deal?

I am a nobody what do you care what I think?

I will continue to read about evolution but I will not fight with any of you over the concept.

Peace

 

[blader]

Originally posted by Stormy
What I do not understand the most is how what I think of evolution is affecting the lot of you!

You deny that it has consumed you as a god but yet you are so angry because I think it is false.

What's the big deal?

I am a nobody what do you care what I think?

I will continue to read about evolution but I will not fight with any of you over the concept.

Peace

You asked for evidence, you asked for answers, and a lot of people tried to provide them, only to be summarily dismissed as "fake drawings" and "jargon." We're just wondering why you chose to do so. I'm not angry at you, and what you believe is none of my business. Keep in mind that no one here went to your house and knocked on your door to preach evolution.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Stormy -

hi again.

I just remembered reading in one of your posts on one of these threads, that you were doing your study of evolution largely through the web and pro-evolution web-sites, because that would be the best way.

That may be a practical expedient - but it isn't the best way. The best way is to take classes (starting with basic biology, chemistry & math classes that cover any basics you are not already very strong on), then to take higher level classes in the areas most closely related to evolution. Once you have a very strong understanding of the state of the art in the basic sciences, you should probably be able to decode some of the journals for science reporting in the university library. There are oodles & iddles of them & it would take you quite a long time to digest enough of the research in the various fields to get you where I think you are wanting to be, but it would be worth the trip.

Its a trip I haven't completed (I have only done a few brief jaunts, and hope for some longer excursions in the future) -- but then, haven't gone as far as you appear to want to go in understanding all of the details of evolution.