Fossil Discovery put's another nail in Evolutions timeline

I wonder who they're paying to chisel all these fossil rocks, then... clearly you could just follow the money. It'd have to come from somewhere.

The dinosaur footprint looks like something out of a cartoon.

You could say the samething about most dinosaur prints, so lets dismiss them all. Oh thats right, we don't have to dismiss them unless they show us something we don't want to believe.

I think you must be a bit puffed after that last sentence, Brett: I expect that you are being chased by holy republican dinosaurs who want to step on your feet. The backwoods of the US are beginning to resemble the Middle Ages in Europe, aren't they, full of sacred and unlikely relics to valuable to be submitted to investigation? Sancta simplicitas!

Hello God People and like me Not God people. How can we sit here and argue over something that doesnt exist? The whole point of being a God Wisher is because your own Id is not up to the conceptualization of Reality.Thats called God. We non believers have fun when we listen to your pretend science to gratify your not understanding of the realities of existence and i got a say the U.S.A. is a breeding ground for fun and entertainment for us down under. Dinosaur prints and pseudoscience equal creationism and creationism represents delusion most profound and profound delusionism is expressed in the republican dinosaur of fundamental Christianity.

Hello God People and like me Not God people. How can we sit here and argue over something that doesnt exist? The whole point of being a God Wisher is because your own Id is not up to the conceptualization of Reality.Thats called God. We non believers have fun when we listen to your pretend science to gratify your not understanding of the realities of existence and i got a say the U.S.A. is a breeding ground for fun and entertainment for us down under. Dinosaur prints and pseudoscience equal creationism and creationism represents delusion most profound and profound delusionism is expressed in the republican dinosaur of fundamental Christianity.

I hear you have a few 'crazies' in Australia as well. Probably not as common as we have them in the states.

I believe the real crazies are the ones who continue to ignore the evidence, and imbrace myths that have no evidence at all.

Delk Track
Investigating the "Delk track"

Anyone who has a problem with the concept of evolution doesn't understand it. It's not complicated, but it is astounding how many people do not grasp it. Even naturalist journalists from time to time betray their lack of understanding. I put it down to being raised in an environment of deliberate planning, designing and engineering. People battle to break their thinking habits. Similar thing for considering nations without government, or life without purpose. Frankly, I find the discussion somewhat embarrassing.

First truth is evidence independent. In stone age, there's no evidence for the presence of black holes, it's far from saying that black holes did not exist in stone age.

Evidence is just for a human brain to recognise a truth (or rather for a belief system to believe that it is the truth). Something is evident to one may not be evident enough to someone else, because they possess a diffferent belief systems (brains).

Science is abit special. Science is the discovery of natural rules which predicts precisely for our brain/belief system to reckon them as the truth. Say, water decomposes into hydrogen and oxygen, this chemical rule allows you to predict precisely that water everywhere behaves so. You can predict this result before every single experiment, and every single experience when set up correctly can hardly falsify your prediction by using the rule. The rule is thus reckoned by human brains/belief systems as the truth.

Evidence is thus not a requirement by science. Evidence is a requirement by human brains because of human failure in dealing with the past. That is, we can't know the past for sure, that's why we need evidence to attempt to approach what truly happened. Humans brains/belief systems are thus required to subjectively give out mainly verbal explanations on how to interpret the so-called evidence presented. Various brains may give out various explanations. Perhaps till a certain consensus is reached by a certain group of brains. Then one of the results will be accepted as the 'truth'.

No doubt it is an efficient approach in reality for humans who are futile about the past to try to reach the truth. The limitation is that, no matter how evident things seem to be, there's still a chance that it's not a truth. And the approach itself relies heavily on verbal explanation from the subjective human brains, instead of the establishment of testable scientific rules.

Such an approach is commonly used in human law courts. Things are very evident to certain jury members may not be that evident to other jury members. A consensus will be reached and the case is ruled by the majority of the chosen jury members (human brains). Yet there will be innocents no matter how evident the cases are. And it's not science anyway. It is rather an efficient and practical method to reach truth, but unlike science nothing is guarranteed. Even when all the jury members voted guilty, there is still innocents. In the end, such a system is faith-based, which says "we believe at best that it is the case/truth".

This is not science because it doesn't bear the characteristic of preditability, falsifyability and repeated testability as required by the existing natural scientific rules discovered.

At most ToE is just to reflect one of the possibilities. Is it possible that God created everything in a way we don't know? Noone can rule out that possibility. At the same time, it says that in case God created everything, ToE can never find the truth. It says that it is possible that ToE is not true (in case God created everything). And it's not scientific at the moment anyway. ID is not scientific just as ToE, yet it bears a chance to find out the truth in case God created everything.

In a nutshell, ToE as an approach relies on the following 3 factors,

1) Evidence presented
2) Human brains to interpret those evidence
3) New kind of knowledge emerged (ancient ToE relies only on the fossils, now DNA is available

So, when is the time a "truth" can be determined and finalized?!

1) when all the evidence are found, because new evidence may still refute previous findings.
2) when humans minds no longer evolve, because the whole thing relies heavily on how those evidence are interpretated, better minds can give out better explanation, theoretically speaking.
3) when all human knowledge are available

So when you obtain the "most proper explanation" it will be the end of days. And even by then, that only gives the 'best explanation' in human history, still not necessarily the truth itself.

The evidence-human brain explanation-result can stil work efficiently in human society to approach truth, such as human legal system employs such an approach. But unlike science, it never guarrantee truth as science relies heavily on the discovery of natural rules instead of evidence.