Evolution? How?

Quote:

I differ with your characterization of the nature of the evidence.

You mostly draw inferences from fossils, Ray. You do not have direct observation (empirical evidence) of evolution when you see a fossil. The fossil is dead. The limited empirical evidence it provides would include that something that was alive is now dead. However, you do not observe it becoming a creature other than what it was. If you did, that would be empirical evidence of evolution, but you do not have it.

You infer from bacterial mutation that enough mutations might produce something other than bacteria. Bacteria have never been actually observed to evolve from bacteria to something else. After mutation, they are still bacteria; so you do not have empirical evidence of evolution.

You draw inferences as well from the other things you mentioned. No direct observation of evolution.

And also when we say something is falsifiable, it does not mean that another theory must be proven true in order to prove yours false. That is incorrect.

People have never seen Ancient Rome, but the pieces are there. It is theoretically not possible for us to have seen species evolve because evolution is something gradual, meaning that it takes multiple mutations and natural circumstances. We do see cases of mutations, and we can deduct from the evidences presented from the identical nature of embryos from different species, and from fossils that show a trend as time goes along that there is a change in the species of animals. Macro living things do not arise out of nothing. It is logically unsound if we were to say otherwise.

When a theory is flasifiable, it means that it is subject to future objection if it can be proven wrong. The concept of a theory implies that it has been proven or observed scientifically.

real life wrote:

I have never worked out a chronology for the Flood. But I have no large problem with the info you posted. In any case, it would be something in the low thousands of years , not millions, if that is the point you are trying to establish.

The problem is, Babylon, Egyptian and Chinese history runs right through this period without a break.

Just trying to figure out a time line. 2304 BC would have put it during the time of the Egyptian Old Kingdom which was around 2575-2150 B.C. It was the Age of pyramids at Giza; the cult of the sun god Re centered was at Heliopolis; they had trade with Mediterranean region. The Eleventh Dynasty began to reign about 2,375 B.C. over a great and powerful nation. The Eleventh Dynasty ruled to about 2,212 B.C., and were followed by the Twelfth Dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 B.C.. There was no break in the Eleventh Dynasty at the time of Noah's flood. There are no historical records of that time period, from the Egyptians, Phoenecians, Greeks or anybody else, mentions any such event (they could, after all, hardly have missed it).

In lower Sumer, the city of Ur of the Chaldees was the leading city from about 2400 B.C. until about 2,285 B.C. and its history is not broken by any flood in this period. Farther to the north, Babylon was rising to power from about 2,400 B.C. on and reached a great height of civilization under the famous King Hammurabi, who lived at the same time as the Hebrew patriarch Abraham (about 2,250 B.C.), and again there is no break in this history due to a flood.

There is simply no evidence for a global flood as described in the bibe.

Bits and pieces of history, gathered from all over the web.
P

Much appreicated; we must be understood by all the bible thumpers who seem to define words in many different ways.

Much appreicated; we must be understood by all the bible thumpers who seem to define words in many different ways.

Inferences based on fossils are tenuous at best.

For example, if I find only fossils of organism A in a layer of rock at the bottom of the hill, and only fossils of organism B in a layer in the middle of the hill -- I cannot conclude from this that the two organisms did not live contemporaneously on Earth at the same time, can I?

No.

The evidence is insufficient to make such a claim. But that is exactly the type of claim that is often used in support of evolution. Basically, these are arguments from silence. "We don't see this, therefore.........."

real life wrote:

Inferences based on fossils are tenuous at best.

For example, if I find only fossils of organism A in a layer of rock at the bottom of the hill, and only fossils of organism B in a layer in the middle of the hill -- I cannot conclude from this that the two organisms did not live contemporaneously on Earth at the same time, can I?

No.

The evidence is insufficient to make such a claim. But that is exactly the type of claim that is often used in support of evolution. Basically, these are arguments from silence. "We don't see this, therefore.........."

In reading this post it strikes me that the basis for your argument against fossil evidence is the same one you use to debate your points: Intentional Obtuseness.

No single piece of evidence by itself means all that much, but the bulk of evidence and the inferences we can take from that bulk are valid scientific indicators of reality.

You are intentionally ignoring the connections between things, treating everything in isolation and refusing to acknowledge the ability of humans to make sense of the world around them.

Your argument is basically, "let's be stupid and then we can ignore the obvious". That's fine if it's the way you want to live your life, but that doesn't work for me.

real life,

How do you define "the" flood as opposed to "a" flood?

cicerone imposter wrote:
Much appreicated; we must be understood by all the bible thumpers who seem to define words in many different ways.

neo wrote:
As well as those who have no defintion at all.

That too!

Insults are two way streets.

My argument is not 'pro-ignorance', nor am I "against fossil evidence".

I simply point out that evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. Just because you may repeat the same inferences over and over does not lend your conclusion any additional credibility. Quantity does not equal quality.

But creation has the quality of the bible; never mind quantity.

No single piece of evidence by itself means all that much, but the bulk of evidence and the inferences we can take from that bulk are valid scientific indicators of reality.

No single piece of evidence by itself means all that much, but the bulk of evidence and the inferences we can take from that bulk are valid scientific indicators of reality.

real life

Quote:

No single piece of evidence by itself means all that much, but the bulk of evidence and the inferences we can take from that bulk are valid scientific indicators of reality.

Thats just another point of logic that RL misses. (I also think its purposeful ommission). When fossil A (bottom of hill) is overlain by fossil B (middle of hill) lets say, only 25 fet separation. IF, the sediments are right side up, we can be sure that B was fossilized later than A . (LAW of Superposition). Now all we need worry about is the time that separates the 2 events and thats where MULTIPLE data sources come in.
We discussed a related topic earlier so, obviously , your posts are beginning to get a bit mantra -like. I suppose you post stuff over and over so that new visitors will think that your providing some new material.

In other words, the lack of evidence of something is not proof of it's absence.

It simply means we have no evidence.