Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Subjective doubt of science makes no sense. Either you agree with all evidence-based speculation or none.
Click to expand...
That reads more like the claim of scientism than science.

This statement misrepresents not only the nature of scientific inquiry but also the kinds of evidence, i.e., direct, indirect, interpreted (subjective) that may be offered in support of a speculation.

All science is in the realm of doubt. As the quality and quantity of evidence that supports any speculation varies so should our agreement with that proposed speculation vary. And, more importantly, reasoning is always subjective. One may always (and should) criticize reasoning that is illogical or poorly formed.

Evidence and reasoning that support a proposition always vary in degrees. Evidence and reasoning for any speculation may be:
  1. beyond the shadow of a doubt,
  2. beyond a reasonable doubt,
  3. based on a preponderance of evidence and cogent reasoning with all experts in agreement, or
  4. based on conflicting evidence, less cogent reasoning and not all experts in agreement
The last option, 4, best characterizes the topic of this thread.

Since all science is inferential, all science is provisional. We can only observe the particular and inductively (and tentatively) claim that the particular observed uniquely represents the general speculation being claimed. We can never observe the general so we can never claim that any speculation is objectively true – just one negating observation will forever obliterate that speculation.

These variances in the kinds of reasoning and evidence in science are especially true of the historigraphical and less true of the empirical sciences.
 
Last edited:
Well now what have we here

A radical new theory rewrites the story of how life on Earth began​

Many ideas have been proposed to explain how it began. Most are based on the assumption that cells are too complex to have formed all at once, so life must have started with just one component that survived and somehow created the others around it. When put into practice in the lab, however, these ideas don’t produce anything particularly lifelike. It is, some researchers are starting to realise, like trying to build a car by making a chassis and hoping wheels and an engine will spontaneously appear.

The alternative – that life emerged fully formed – seems even more unlikely. Yet perhaps astoundingly, two lines of evidence are converging to suggest that this is exactly what happened. It turns out that all the key molecules of life can form from the same simple carbon-based chemistry. What’s more, they easily combine to make startlingly lifelike “protocells”. As well as explaining how life began, this “everything-first” idea of life’s origins also has implications for where it got started – and the most likely locations for extraterrestrial life, too.

 
buffalo said:
When put into practice in the lab, however, these ideas don’t produce anything particularly lifelike.
Click to expand...
But what about this evidence-based speculation!

!(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
buffalo said:
Well now what have we here…
Click to expand...
And the very first line of the article?

‘WHEN Earth formed, 4.5 billion years ago…’

The initial statement, the fact on which the article is based, is something you reject entirely. You’re like a flat earther who posts a link to an article that he thinks supports his case when the article starts with ‘The planet, being an oblate speroid…’

Can we assume that you and @o_mlly accept the age given? If not, the article makes no sense. And do you think we could we trust the person writing it when you think that they have got something as basic as the age of the planet so catastrophically wrong?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
The alternative – that life emerged fully formed – seems even more unlikely. Yet perhaps astoundingly, two lines of evidence are converging to suggest that this is exactly what happened.
Click to expand...
@Freddy one again missing the important point.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
buffalo:
The alternative – that life emerged fully formed – seems even more unlikely. Yet perhaps astoundingly, two lines of evidence are converging to suggest that this is exactly what happened.
Click to expand...
@Freddy one again missing the important point.
Click to expand...
So you trust the writers of that article to have things right? To have the facts correct?
 
Last edited:
Scientists can theorise all they like, but until someone converts inanimate matter into a living organism (that can also reproduce), all those theories are just blowing smoke. Scientist should channel their talents into something important - like curing cancer or inventing golf balls that float.
 
Don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t trust a source that said the Earth was flat, no matter what else they said. I’d look for some other info.
 
Last edited:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t trust a source that said the Earth was flat, no matter what else they said. I’d look for some other info.
Click to expand...
I’ve used this comparison before and it’s worth repeating. If we take the age of the planet to be the distance between Yankee Stadium in NY and the Dodger Stadium in L.A. then if Buff is standing on the pitchers mound at Yankee Stadium, he thinks the equivalent distance is from where he is…to first base at the Yankee Stadium…

Buffalo accepting the basis on which that article was written is like accepting that someone can throw a fast ball at the Yankee stadium and strike out someone at Dodgers.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
buffalo:
When put into practice in the lab, however, these ideas don’t produce anything particularly lifelike.
Click to expand...
But what about this evidence-based speculation!

!(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
Well, as long as they can keep adding those 000-000-000-000-there’s always hope. :roll_eyes:
 
Ah, yes, the only reason the universe is dated to be so old is because we have no other way to prove evolution. You got us.

You don’t seriously believe that, do you?
 
One cannot “prove” a theory, only test and fail to disprove it.

Didn’t answer my question, either. Do you think the age of Earth is artificially inflated to provide credibility to evolution?
 
Last edited:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
One cannot “prove” a theory, only test and fail to disprove it.
Click to expand...
“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study.”- Stephen J Gould
 
Not only did that not answer my question, it means absolutely nothing in the context of your quoted passage.

Plus, after further research? Gould was an evolutionary biologist who disagreed with Darwin not on evolution as a whole, but on the degree to which adaptation guided evolution. Your quote doesn’t even support you!

I ask again: Do you think the age of Earth is artificially inflated to provide credibility to evolution?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top