Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They're calling the computer models predictions, not evidence.Exactly my point. They've admitted their shortcomings, but instead of stopping there and investing in the continued search for actual evidence, they fill the gaps with their computer models, and call THAT evidence.
Computer models are NOT evidence, they are mere conjecture.
You are trying to rename something to make it sound less credible. You seem to be projecting.
Scientists refer to these as scientific models or conclusions, quite separate from scientific evidence. You are the only one trying to change scientific conclusions into something they aren't.
How are they overreaching?
Scientists aren't allowed to use observations to make tentative conclusions?
Actually, they are admitting that the way their models look may not be exact, but they ARE using these models to "prove" that such evolution is a reality.
The fact remains, they are using these models to fill huge gaps in the fossil record. Scientists have been making bold claims about the evolution of man for many years now, and there is still no adequate fossil evidence to support their claims.
How have I renamed anything?
I called them exactly what they are, computer modules.
Really? How is pointing out the method scientists use to fill in major gaps in the fossil record changing scientific conclusions?
They are overreaching, because they have admitted they have very little actual evidence.
And they are not making "tentative conclusions." They have based massive claims on a fragmentary fossil record.
They're calling the computer models predictions, not evidence.
How have I renamed anything? I called them exactly what they are, computer modules.
Really? How is pointing out the method scientists use to fill in major gaps in the fossil record changing scientific conclusions?
They are overreaching, because they have admitted they have very little actual evidence.
And they are not making "tentative conclusions." They have based massive claims on a fragmentary fossil record.
They are "predictions" in the sense that scientists admit they don't know exactly what the skeletal structures looked like. They are not however considering their computer models predictions as to the claim that such transitions actually occurred. As far as they're concerned these transitions absolutely happened, even though they have no substantial evidence for such claims, and they've even admitted as much.
Scientists describe them as conclusions. You try to rename it as evidence in an attempt to discredit the scientists.
You tried to claim that scientists are calling them evidence, which they never did.
"Actually, they are admitting that the way their models look may not be exact, but they ARE using these models to "prove" that such evolution is a reality. "
"Are scientists manufacturing their own "evidence" to fill the huge gaps in the fossil record or aren't they?
It's pretty obvious what is happening. Deny it if you want. Your choice."
Two quotes from you where you misrepresent what scientists state are conclusions as evidence. You try to claim that scientists are misrepresenting their conclusions as evidence, yet can't find a single instance of a scientist actually doing that.
Doesn't look fragmentary to me.
Here's something to help your woefully inadequate knowledge of the scientific process...
When we discovered Tiktaalik, we did so largely on the basis of following a predictive model which indicated where we should look to find it. The prediction was successful.
Now, the model itself is not evidence, but it was constructed on the basis of other evidence which had already been collected.
And this is a feature of any robust scientific theory......it should be able to be used to predict further advances in knowledge.
Does any of this help you, or is it time to put that head back into the sand?
I said they are using their computer models as evidence, and they are.
So you disagree with scientists then? You do realize they've acknowledged that the fossil evidence is fragmentary right?
Oh, and I asked for credible sources, not just conveniently inserted pictures.
WHERE?????
I agree with the scientists.
"For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
What is more credible than the fossils themselves?
Where is the link? That is just a picture.
They are scientific observations and evidence, the very things you are asking for. I also gave you a quote from Gould, which you apparently missed.
What we are talking about is the inescapable conclusion that the God described by Christian theology is immoral. I guess you wouldn't have to hate a child to watch the child suffer a painful death and do nothing about it, all the while having the power to instantly heal the child with a minimum of effort. However, no moral deity would do such a thing.
You prove my point.
It's all good.Threads like this always turn out like this.
Look, the people at the Smithsonean and other scienctific institutions already accept the theory of evolution and the human evolution. They are already assuming that human evolution is adaquately supported and are using a computer model, using data from actual fossils, to predict what kind of fossil we should be looking for and what this means.
How?They aren't try to fill a massive gap in the argument because, from their persepctive, the argument is over unless some massive earth-shattering evidence changes everything.
They are trying to further look into the specifics of human evolution, not provide support for a scientific theory or argue against a bunch of creationists.
Here's an important question: what would you need to convince you of human evolution?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?