I take it your a Christian in which case the fact that a Bible exsisted and is here today and written from the Word of God/Christ is 100% proof that all the Bible says is Truth and anything else is false.
Thus no such thing as Dinosaurs, but Giants exist.
Some say there is proof of Evolution and no Proof of God apart from stories in a ancient book.
There is no 100% way to prove who is correct or not.
@gregrutz How is that a 'fact'. No one was there to observe the 'last of 5 great mass extinctions' so how is it anything other that speculation or an assumption?
The order superimposed on the fossil record is an assumption. Those fossils weren't dug up out of the ground in that order. The assumptions about the fossil record certainly fall outside the realm of empirical science.
On the bottom is a layer of rock with only shell fossils in it,
above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils
There are no human fossils found in any of these layers.
This is also a superimposed order. An example that negates the assumed order is that vertebrates have been found in the Early "Cambrian" of south China. This obviously does not fit the assumed geologic column. But since, like everything to do with evolution, it is based on imagination, the geologic column will be modified into more nonsense. This mean that there is good news though; the geologic column does exist, even if only in the imaginations of the evolutionists.
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
The geologic column is arbitrary, like everything to do with evolution. Fossils are dated by the layer, the layer by the fossil. That is a vicious circle. And that bag of wind is deflated by finding index fossils outside their respective layers.
Darwin was refuted 'out of the gate.' Fleeming Jenkins refuted him showing a single variation can't be perpetuated, forcing Darwin to retreat to Lamarkian inheritance. Things haven't improved for evolution.
The K-T boundry is when the dinosaurs died out, it is the end of a time period and the beginning of a new time period. It happened, a great mass extinction killing most of the life on earth. They knew this before dating methods were invented.
Evolution isn't science, it's a world view. Its self delusion based solely upon vain imaginings. Being peer reviewed is not an endorsement when a peer by definition shares the same presuppositions. Presuppositions are what tell you what to make of evidence. Peer review is not objective and is meant to exclude thing which could harm the shared presupposition. If the evidence isnt objective, and it never is, then why should anyone believe it? That's a question to answer.
So far we've seen that Darwin was refuted immediately, and that the geologic column fails under its own assumptions. You have imagination upon imagination based upon faulty presupposition. Presuppositions are what tell you what to make of evidence. How could you possibly substantiate your presuppositions, since your interpretation of evidence is based on your presuppositions?
There was indeed an acceptance of evolution, but not because of science or the evidence. Like I mentioned, even Darwin had to back pedal to a Lamarkian position, which he had previously ridiculed.
A world view is a personal network of presuppositions. Presuppositions are beliefs or assumptions. Presuppositions are usually acquired from authority figures such as parents or teachers, etc. You for example have evolutionist presuppositions.
Because evidence is something that's interpreted through a person's presuppositions, evidence is usually meaningful to those with common presuppositions. When you say science (specifically historical) is evidence based, you're saying that your interpretation of "evidence" supports your presuppositions. That's a vicious circular argument. Why should your interpretation of evidence be meaningful to someone with different presuppositions? How do you know that your presuppositions are correct?
You are correct in saying that the geologic column is a time scale. When I said that it fails its own assumptions I was employing reification. So: The assumptions that go into trying to make the geologic column fail because index fossils fall outside the framework of those assumptions.
Evolution is not accepted because of the evidence, rather the evidence is accepted as supporting evolution because of the presupposition of evolution. And a faulty presupposition at that. One glaring fault of the presupposition of evolution is its lack of explanatory power regarding any epistemological imperatives.
Actually Lystrosaurus is one of the most common "early triasic" index fossils, especially in South Africa.
You keep saying that evolution is a fact, but you only offer assumptions and imaginations. Perhaps the significance of presuppositions have not been made clear to you. For example, the belief that evolution is a fact and not a presupposition is itself a presupposition.
What epistemological conditions of intelligibility does evolution satisfy?
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
Darwin was refuted 'out of the gate.' Fleeming Jenkins refuted him showing a single variation can't be perpetuated, forcing Darwin to retreat to Lamarkian inheritance. Things haven't improved for evolution.
What epistemological conditions of intelligibility does evolution satisfy?
What a bizarre comment. The last sentence barely makes any sense. Struggling to understand the circularity of reasoning in evolution. Its just not there. The evidence of the fossil record and the patterns in species' genomes proves, without doubt, common descent and the tree of life. This is an inevitable conclusion that many drew without any presupposition, or were forced to draw despite having presupposed the truth of the bible.
Again, just bizarre. All scientific discoveries have a discoverer- and the evidence was not readily available to scientists before the enthusiasm of the fossil hunters in the 19th century. Many scientific facts, from heliocentrism and relativity to evolution and dna are in reality self evident, but we still needed copernicus, galileo, einstein, darwin watson and crick for them to become common belief.
What do you suppose that Copernicus discovered that the Aristotelians didnt already know? Nothing, actually. The Aristotelians were already aware of the anomalous motion of the planets and had mathematically accounted for it. What changed were the presuppositions through which the evidence was interpreted. Thomas Kuhn called this a "paradigm shift".
This doesn't change the fact that the fact that evolution isn't disqualified from being self-evident by having only been discovered in 1859. Even if it weren't a pile of bollocks with some long words and a quote thrown in.
Darwin published "Origin of Species" in 1859, but the concept predates him, even before the time of his grandfather, Erasmus, and the publication of Zoonomia. Charles Darwin didn't set sail aboard the Beagle without the idea of evolution already in his head. Considering that Charles Darwin was working with a borrowed concept, and therefore a presupposition, what is it that makes you think of something as self evident?
You keep using the word "presupposition" like it's this major hot button in the theory of knowledge. Whatever logical process you think led to the discovery of evolution, it follows directly from the evidence- just like heliocentrism or relativity. I don't know why you are so keen to criticise Evolution via a flawed understanding of how scientific discovery works, or by suggesting that the Origin of Species did not represent the most important leap in evolutionary biology along with dna.
If evolution were self evident, then why hasn't it been a commonly held belief for thousands of years? Certainly Aristotle knew about fossils, but didn't apply their existence to any concept of evolution. And finches have been around forever. So what is self evidence about it?
Mate, you're confusing self-evident with really obvious. By self-evident I simply mean that evolution is required by the evidence, it's a fact which the evidence tells us. It still takes time, scientific progress and a stroke of genius to work out that that is what the evidence is telling us. Please explain to me what you think the difference between heliocentrism- self-evident but discovered and proved by a series of scientists from Aristarchus to Copernicus and Galileo- and evolution is.
That is a very interesting interpretation of "self evident". Perhaps you could tell me what reference you are using to establish that as a required meaning for the phrase. It is more apt to be interpreted along the lines of "immediately intuitable".
Regardless, it does not follow that evidence ever requires anything as evidence does not actually have a mind in order to require. The other problem is that your argument is affirming the consequent.
Apt to be interpreted wrongly. I would trust only an interpretation of self-evident for scientific, and mathematic, theories which included heliocentrism, relativity, gravity, euclidian geometry etc
Obviously by require here I mean necessitate. The facts imply, by defintion, only one accurate explanation. This is the explanation that is required, or necessitated. In the case of the genome and the fossil record, they require, or necessitate, the explanation of evolution by natural selection.
It isn't actually possible for facts to imply. Facts have no communications ability. Your are actually making an error called reification by saying so.
And please share your reference for the definition you've used for "self evident".
No reference mate, not even a whole definition I provided- just a set of parameters I would find useful when looking into defining it in complete detail. Again I'm not suggesting that the facts are making any positive action in and of themselves. By saying that the facts imply, or the facts tell us that, all I am doing is saying that there is only one rational explanation we can use that is consistent with the facts. It's about being concise. Same as using require as a synonym for necessitate.
Best way to be sure about any scientific issue or rational scientific explanation. More than 200000 articles about evolution in the scientific literature represent the only explanation present in the scientific literature for the origin of species. For me, not a molecular biologist, it's pretty evident that evolution is the way to go. This is the same reason that I am sure the earth goes round the sun, e=mc squared and that I got the MMR vaccine
200000 articles sounds like an appeal to popularity or consensus, and not your rational reasoning. I would expect you to begin with a bias toward evolution since that is what we are taught in schools. But what logic sustains it in your mind, other than somebody said so.
BTW e-mc^2 is still observable, but we can't observe "billions" of years to see evolution.
200000+ articles is only impressive once you understand what the scientific literature consists of, and what being published means. (Roughly) A mere 10% of submitted articles are published in the scientific literature regardless of conformity to consensus or populism. Sure it sounds like an appeal to popularity or consensus- once examined it represents trusting a consensus that vaccinated me, provided me with this computer and assures me that the earth goes round the sun. Facts so win.
I didn't say that 200000 articles weren't impressive. What I said was that by reference the existence you are making an appeal to consensus, which you then demonstrate by stating the "a mere 10% of submitted articles are published..."
What would demonstrating that the Earth revolves around the sun have to do with evolution? You're trying to make a false association to make your point but pointing out that astronomy is observable has nothing to do with evolution.
I don't think it's a false association. I'm pointing out that when a mechanism for discovering scientific fact succeeds time and time and time again in the situations when there is almost 100% agreement among scientists, if it then does the same for evolution, there is no reasonable excuse for thinking they're wrong this time. I didn't point out that astronomy was observable. I pointed out that the scientific consensus has earned our trust.
At one time geocentrism was "proven" and was held by the scientific community as true. You know that it was overturned in favor of helocentrism. That sort of pattern repeats itself in science throughout history. Scientists have been wrong in the past. What they get right, they get right; what they get wrong, they get wrong. And the science that makes my computer work is not the same science that shows us the Earth orbits the sun.
You're right, I pointed out that astronomy is observable.
Exactly, what's fantastic about the modern scientific community, as opposed to the religious community, is that it admits its fallibility. This only reinforces the conclusion that, as of now, no valid criticisms of core evolutionary theory exist- since all the evidence suggests that, if we currently had any serious evidence that disproved/doubted evolution it would be welcomed and accepted by the scientific community.
In saying that the scientific community admits its fallibility and the religious community doesn't, and then saying there isn't any valid criticisms of the "core evolutionary theory" (whatever that means) you make a strong argument for evolution being a religion.
"Valid evidence" against a scientific belief isn't generally welcomed by the status quo community. It took 60 years after the death of Copernicus for heliocentrism to become dominant. Apparently serous evidence isn't enough.
To summarise, a whole lot of scientific theories held today are self-evident, but they were not commonly held beliefs until they were discovered, usually by a genius. this goes for maths aswell, or logic. To say that evolution isn't self evident because it isn't obvious is just wrong.
Geologist study the rocks and history of the earth. 200 years ago, they already knew the earth was millions of years old and there was no golbal flood.
In this case I believe he is wrong about Job, when Job describes smoke from the creatures nessings he really meant it, keep reading and you read about literal fire. Some of the 'dragons' in the past I believe were fire breathing Dino's. Plenty of evidence, also swept under the carpet.
There are lizards today that can breath fire, but they are so small and dont live near as long. Dinosaurs (originally called dragons) were simply lizards who lived for hundreds of years. They grew big because lizards never stop growing.
@jdigitalseven - I knew that apart from the baby fire dragons, could you please provide me with a link or search reference etc to read up on, would be very interested. I know about the beetles but not baby lizards. Please!
I have it somewhere, I'll have too look it up again. Its mere fantasy to think anybody can date anything 10, 000 years ago, let alone 160 million!! We have the oldest book (The Bible) that says the earth is less than 7000 years old. There is no "pre history" as well. History started with creation as it was documented.
Its not like cartoons picture it...just like unicorns arent a horse with a horn (as no horses have horns). A unicorn was simply a dragon (dinosaur) that had guess what 1 horn. Always associated with the unicorn is an animal that cant be tamed. Horse obviously can be tamed but lizards cant. A horned lizard living for hundreds of years = unicorn, not a make believe horse that has no fossil record support for.
Of course the bible does not mention dinosaurs, they had not been dug up when men wrote the bible. They went extinct 65 million years ago, except the ones with feathers.
gregrutz: The word "dinosaur" was invented in 1841. Before then, other names were given to them. For example, why there are so many legends around the world concerning dragons?
I would say that Dinosaurs are more closer to Birds than Lizards.
BanjoKiD2K 7 months ago
@BanjoKiD2K Evolution is closer to science fiction then real science.
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
@BereanBeacon1
But then what is the Truth then....
Its all a question of Faith.
I take it your a Christian in which case the fact that a Bible exsisted and is here today and written from the Word of God/Christ is 100% proof that all the Bible says is Truth and anything else is false.
Thus no such thing as Dinosaurs, but Giants exist.
Some say there is proof of Evolution and no Proof of God apart from stories in a ancient book.
There is no 100% way to prove who is correct or not.
BanjoKiD2K 7 months ago
No! No! No! You've got it all wrong!
They told me at church that Dinosaurs never existed!
The Fossils were put here by Satan, to take our eyes off of the Lord!
You know that the Earth is really only 7 thousand years old!
(If you don't know that, you're not really a Christian!)
Read your Bible!
If you're going to talk about creation, get it right!
God BlessYou!
legion1a 1 year ago 18
Comment removed
DragonLegoKid 1 year ago
@DragonLegoKid
No! How dare you say that!
Read your Bible!
Atheist!
legion1a 1 year ago
@legion1a Yes try trolling harder. It seems like your name is a very good description of yourself. A true legion of demons....
raponte1955 7 months ago
@raponte1955
That's some pretty good trolling!
Thank you for bringing me back to this video!
I had no idea that a comment I made 9 months ago would still have the most positive votes!
You have really made my day!
My comment passed the test of time!
I may change my user name to "The Proud Troller"!
My name is Legion, for we are many! (Atheists that is)
Thanks again!
legion1a 7 months ago
@legion1a LOL I have to admit you have a very good sense of humor for an atheist.
raponte1955 7 months ago
Dinosaurs evolved for 150 million years, maybe early ones were cold blooded and later ones were warm blooded, some had feathers too.
gregrutz 2 years ago
They started out cold blooded and evolved into warm blooded feathered dinosaurs.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Do they just make shit up as needed?
Dinosaur died out in the last of 5 great mass extinctions that hit the earth.
65 million years ago. Fact.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz How is that a 'fact'. No one was there to observe the 'last of 5 great mass extinctions' so how is it anything other that speculation or an assumption?
tzephon 2 years ago
It is called the fossil record, no assumptions.
Dinosaurs had hollow bones like the birds they evolved into. Feathers too.
gregrutz 2 years ago
The order superimposed on the fossil record is an assumption. Those fossils weren't dug up out of the ground in that order. The assumptions about the fossil record certainly fall outside the realm of empirical science.
tzephon 2 years ago
The fossils are layered like this, fact>
On the bottom is a layer of rock with only shell fossils in it,
above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils,
above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils
There are no human fossils found in any of these layers.
Evolution explains this order, can you?
gregrutz 2 years ago
This is also a superimposed order. An example that negates the assumed order is that vertebrates have been found in the Early "Cambrian" of south China. This obviously does not fit the assumed geologic column. But since, like everything to do with evolution, it is based on imagination, the geologic column will be modified into more nonsense. This mean that there is good news though; the geologic column does exist, even if only in the imaginations of the evolutionists.
tzephon 2 years ago
the geologic column is a TIME scale.
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
gregrutz 2 years ago
The geologic column is arbitrary, like everything to do with evolution. Fossils are dated by the layer, the layer by the fossil. That is a vicious circle. And that bag of wind is deflated by finding index fossils outside their respective layers.
Darwin was refuted 'out of the gate.' Fleeming Jenkins refuted him showing a single variation can't be perpetuated, forcing Darwin to retreat to Lamarkian inheritance. Things haven't improved for evolution.
tzephon 2 years ago
geologic column is arbitrary
The K-T boundry is when the dinosaurs died out, it is the end of a time period and the beginning of a new time period. It happened, a great mass extinction killing most of the life on earth. They knew this before dating methods were invented.
It is evidence, not a belief
gregrutz 2 years ago
Evolution isn't science, it's a world view. Its self delusion based solely upon vain imaginings. Being peer reviewed is not an endorsement when a peer by definition shares the same presuppositions. Presuppositions are what tell you what to make of evidence. Peer review is not objective and is meant to exclude thing which could harm the shared presupposition. If the evidence isnt objective, and it never is, then why should anyone believe it? That's a question to answer.
tzephon 2 years ago
Evolution happened, fact.
The theory of evolution is a part of Biology, a Science.
"If the evidence isnt objective"
The evidence is called 'facts'
It can been seen by all, but some don't look, don't even know how much evidence supports evolution.
gregrutz 2 years ago
So far we've seen that Darwin was refuted immediately, and that the geologic column fails under its own assumptions. You have imagination upon imagination based upon faulty presupposition. Presuppositions are what tell you what to make of evidence. How could you possibly substantiate your presuppositions, since your interpretation of evidence is based on your presuppositions?
tzephon 2 years ago
Evolution was accepted 10 years after Darwin discovered Natural Selection.
The Geologic column is a time scale,
1 million years ago, 2 million years ago, etc. How can it make assumptions.
What presuppositions? Sciece is based on evidence. Facts.
gregrutz 2 years ago
There was indeed an acceptance of evolution, but not because of science or the evidence. Like I mentioned, even Darwin had to back pedal to a Lamarkian position, which he had previously ridiculed.
A world view is a personal network of presuppositions. Presuppositions are beliefs or assumptions. Presuppositions are usually acquired from authority figures such as parents or teachers, etc. You for example have evolutionist presuppositions.
tzephon 2 years ago
No, evolution is accepted because of the evidence.
Lamark was wrong, and had nothing to do with Darwin's idea.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Because evidence is something that's interpreted through a person's presuppositions, evidence is usually meaningful to those with common presuppositions. When you say science (specifically historical) is evidence based, you're saying that your interpretation of "evidence" supports your presuppositions. That's a vicious circular argument. Why should your interpretation of evidence be meaningful to someone with different presuppositions? How do you know that your presuppositions are correct?
tzephon 2 years ago
Name a presupposition.
gregrutz 2 years ago
You are correct in saying that the geologic column is a time scale. When I said that it fails its own assumptions I was employing reification. So: The assumptions that go into trying to make the geologic column fail because index fossils fall outside the framework of those assumptions.
tzephon 2 years ago
Name an index fossil.
gregrutz 2 years ago
index fossil: Lystrosaurus
Presupposition: evolution
Evolution is not accepted because of the evidence, rather the evidence is accepted as supporting evolution because of the presupposition of evolution. And a faulty presupposition at that. One glaring fault of the presupposition of evolution is its lack of explanatory power regarding any epistemological imperatives.
tzephon 2 years ago
Lystrosaurus is not common enough to make it a good index fossil.
Evolution happened, proven. It is not a presupposition, it is a fact. "lack of explanatory power" LOL LOL
gregrutz 2 years ago
Actually Lystrosaurus is one of the most common "early triasic" index fossils, especially in South Africa.
You keep saying that evolution is a fact, but you only offer assumptions and imaginations. Perhaps the significance of presuppositions have not been made clear to you. For example, the belief that evolution is a fact and not a presupposition is itself a presupposition.
What epistemological conditions of intelligibility does evolution satisfy?
tzephon 2 years ago
Evolution happened.
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
Evolution happened, fact.
gregrutz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Darwin was refuted 'out of the gate.' Fleeming Jenkins refuted him showing a single variation can't be perpetuated, forcing Darwin to retreat to Lamarkian inheritance. Things haven't improved for evolution.
What epistemological conditions of intelligibility does evolution satisfy?
tzephon 2 years ago
What a bizarre comment. The last sentence barely makes any sense. Struggling to understand the circularity of reasoning in evolution. Its just not there. The evidence of the fossil record and the patterns in species' genomes proves, without doubt, common descent and the tree of life. This is an inevitable conclusion that many drew without any presupposition, or were forced to draw despite having presupposed the truth of the bible.
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
If evolution were self evident we wouldn't have needed to wait for Darwin for it to become common belief.
tzephon 2 years ago
Again, just bizarre. All scientific discoveries have a discoverer- and the evidence was not readily available to scientists before the enthusiasm of the fossil hunters in the 19th century. Many scientific facts, from heliocentrism and relativity to evolution and dna are in reality self evident, but we still needed copernicus, galileo, einstein, darwin watson and crick for them to become common belief.
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
What do you suppose that Copernicus discovered that the Aristotelians didnt already know? Nothing, actually. The Aristotelians were already aware of the anomalous motion of the planets and had mathematically accounted for it. What changed were the presuppositions through which the evidence was interpreted. Thomas Kuhn called this a "paradigm shift".
tzephon 2 years ago
This doesn't change the fact that the fact that evolution isn't disqualified from being self-evident by having only been discovered in 1859. Even if it weren't a pile of bollocks with some long words and a quote thrown in.
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
Darwin published "Origin of Species" in 1859, but the concept predates him, even before the time of his grandfather, Erasmus, and the publication of Zoonomia. Charles Darwin didn't set sail aboard the Beagle without the idea of evolution already in his head. Considering that Charles Darwin was working with a borrowed concept, and therefore a presupposition, what is it that makes you think of something as self evident?
tzephon 2 years ago
You keep using the word "presupposition" like it's this major hot button in the theory of knowledge. Whatever logical process you think led to the discovery of evolution, it follows directly from the evidence- just like heliocentrism or relativity. I don't know why you are so keen to criticise Evolution via a flawed understanding of how scientific discovery works, or by suggesting that the Origin of Species did not represent the most important leap in evolutionary biology along with dna.
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
If evolution were self evident, then why hasn't it been a commonly held belief for thousands of years? Certainly Aristotle knew about fossils, but didn't apply their existence to any concept of evolution. And finches have been around forever. So what is self evidence about it?
tzephon 2 years ago
Mate, you're confusing self-evident with really obvious. By self-evident I simply mean that evolution is required by the evidence, it's a fact which the evidence tells us. It still takes time, scientific progress and a stroke of genius to work out that that is what the evidence is telling us. Please explain to me what you think the difference between heliocentrism- self-evident but discovered and proved by a series of scientists from Aristarchus to Copernicus and Galileo- and evolution is.
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
That is a very interesting interpretation of "self evident". Perhaps you could tell me what reference you are using to establish that as a required meaning for the phrase. It is more apt to be interpreted along the lines of "immediately intuitable".
Regardless, it does not follow that evidence ever requires anything as evidence does not actually have a mind in order to require. The other problem is that your argument is affirming the consequent.
tzephon 2 years ago
Apt to be interpreted wrongly. I would trust only an interpretation of self-evident for scientific, and mathematic, theories which included heliocentrism, relativity, gravity, euclidian geometry etc
Obviously by require here I mean necessitate. The facts imply, by defintion, only one accurate explanation. This is the explanation that is required, or necessitated. In the case of the genome and the fossil record, they require, or necessitate, the explanation of evolution by natural selection.
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
It isn't actually possible for facts to imply. Facts have no communications ability. Your are actually making an error called reification by saying so.
And please share your reference for the definition you've used for "self evident".
tzephon 2 years ago
No reference mate, not even a whole definition I provided- just a set of parameters I would find useful when looking into defining it in complete detail. Again I'm not suggesting that the facts are making any positive action in and of themselves. By saying that the facts imply, or the facts tell us that, all I am doing is saying that there is only one rational explanation we can use that is consistent with the facts. It's about being concise. Same as using require as a synonym for necessitate.
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
How do you qualify what constitutes a "rational explanation" and how can you be sure?
tzephon 2 years ago
Best way to be sure about any scientific issue or rational scientific explanation. More than 200000 articles about evolution in the scientific literature represent the only explanation present in the scientific literature for the origin of species. For me, not a molecular biologist, it's pretty evident that evolution is the way to go. This is the same reason that I am sure the earth goes round the sun, e=mc squared and that I got the MMR vaccine
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
200000 articles sounds like an appeal to popularity or consensus, and not your rational reasoning. I would expect you to begin with a bias toward evolution since that is what we are taught in schools. But what logic sustains it in your mind, other than somebody said so.
BTW e-mc^2 is still observable, but we can't observe "billions" of years to see evolution.
tzephon 2 years ago
200000+ articles is only impressive once you understand what the scientific literature consists of, and what being published means. (Roughly) A mere 10% of submitted articles are published in the scientific literature regardless of conformity to consensus or populism. Sure it sounds like an appeal to popularity or consensus- once examined it represents trusting a consensus that vaccinated me, provided me with this computer and assures me that the earth goes round the sun. Facts so win.
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
I didn't say that 200000 articles weren't impressive. What I said was that by reference the existence you are making an appeal to consensus, which you then demonstrate by stating the "a mere 10% of submitted articles are published..."
What would demonstrating that the Earth revolves around the sun have to do with evolution? You're trying to make a false association to make your point but pointing out that astronomy is observable has nothing to do with evolution.
tzephon 2 years ago
I don't think it's a false association. I'm pointing out that when a mechanism for discovering scientific fact succeeds time and time and time again in the situations when there is almost 100% agreement among scientists, if it then does the same for evolution, there is no reasonable excuse for thinking they're wrong this time. I didn't point out that astronomy was observable. I pointed out that the scientific consensus has earned our trust.
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
At one time geocentrism was "proven" and was held by the scientific community as true. You know that it was overturned in favor of helocentrism. That sort of pattern repeats itself in science throughout history. Scientists have been wrong in the past. What they get right, they get right; what they get wrong, they get wrong. And the science that makes my computer work is not the same science that shows us the Earth orbits the sun.
You're right, I pointed out that astronomy is observable.
tzephon 2 years ago
Exactly, what's fantastic about the modern scientific community, as opposed to the religious community, is that it admits its fallibility. This only reinforces the conclusion that, as of now, no valid criticisms of core evolutionary theory exist- since all the evidence suggests that, if we currently had any serious evidence that disproved/doubted evolution it would be welcomed and accepted by the scientific community.
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
In saying that the scientific community admits its fallibility and the religious community doesn't, and then saying there isn't any valid criticisms of the "core evolutionary theory" (whatever that means) you make a strong argument for evolution being a religion.
"Valid evidence" against a scientific belief isn't generally welcomed by the status quo community. It took 60 years after the death of Copernicus for heliocentrism to become dominant. Apparently serous evidence isn't enough.
tzephon 2 years ago
To summarise, a whole lot of scientific theories held today are self-evident, but they were not commonly held beliefs until they were discovered, usually by a genius. this goes for maths aswell, or logic. To say that evolution isn't self evident because it isn't obvious is just wrong.
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
Oh and by the way, Darwin worked out that finches had not been around forever. That's the point.
bobisterbezreal 2 years ago
The GEOLOGIC column is part
of GEOLOGY. [am I going to fast for you?]
Geologist study the rocks and history of the earth. 200 years ago, they already knew the earth was millions of years old and there was no golbal flood.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Pretty interesting stuff, i really like the Creation Moments series.
Barachem 2 years ago 4
In this case I believe he is wrong about Job, when Job describes smoke from the creatures nessings he really meant it, keep reading and you read about literal fire. Some of the 'dragons' in the past I believe were fire breathing Dino's. Plenty of evidence, also swept under the carpet.
sparkshot 2 years ago 5
@sparkshot
the legends of chinese dragons were fire breathing
emilioTOMASbarca 2 years ago
-epic facepalm-
pokerslut530 2 years ago
There are lizards today that can breath fire, but they are so small and dont live near as long. Dinosaurs (originally called dragons) were simply lizards who lived for hundreds of years. They grew big because lizards never stop growing.
jdigitalseven 2 years ago
@jdigitalseven - I knew that apart from the baby fire dragons, could you please provide me with a link or search reference etc to read up on, would be very interested. I know about the beetles but not baby lizards. Please!
sparkshot 2 years ago
I found actually more than before, I'll send in a PM.
jdigitalseven 2 years ago
Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160 million years. They walked with there legs under them, most lizards don't.
Name a lizard the breaths fire !!
gregrutz 2 years ago
I have it somewhere, I'll have too look it up again. Its mere fantasy to think anybody can date anything 10, 000 years ago, let alone 160 million!! We have the oldest book (The Bible) that says the earth is less than 7000 years old. There is no "pre history" as well. History started with creation as it was documented.
jdigitalseven 2 years ago
If the earth is 6000 years old how, does he answer dendrochronology [tree rings]. They can date up to 10,000 B. C. with an accuracy of 1 year.
Ice Cores go back 100,000 years.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Ice Core samples go back over 100,000 years.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Animals don't breath fire, IDiot.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Its not like cartoons picture it...just like unicorns arent a horse with a horn (as no horses have horns). A unicorn was simply a dragon (dinosaur) that had guess what 1 horn. Always associated with the unicorn is an animal that cant be tamed. Horse obviously can be tamed but lizards cant. A horned lizard living for hundreds of years = unicorn, not a make believe horse that has no fossil record support for.
jdigitalseven 2 years ago
Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160 million years.
gregrutz 2 years ago
BEREAN!!! You'll fall for any fool with a Bible, won't you? So, did Adam and Eve make saddles to ride around on their triceratops?
ChurchOfKali66619 2 years ago
I feel like i'm watching Jurassic Park!!! I love stuff like this! God truly knew what He was doing, Praise His Name!
GabrielGroverMan 2 years ago 3
Dinosaurs prove the bible is wrong, dummy.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz - incorrect, dear sir! The Bible does not mention the existence of dinosaurs (leviathan, in my interpretation, is not a dinosaur).
Genesis = context.
Reddogg387 2 years ago
Of course the bible does not mention dinosaurs, they had not been dug up when men wrote the bible. They went extinct 65 million years ago, except the ones with feathers.
gregrutz 2 years ago
gregrutz: The word "dinosaur" was invented in 1841. Before then, other names were given to them. For example, why there are so many legends around the world concerning dragons?
gashyna 2 years ago
What do fire breathing dragons have to do with reptiles that ruled the earth for 160 million years, 65 million years ago.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Not a single detail has escaped His attention. Praise the Lord for His wisdom and mercy!
EbolaV1rus 2 years ago 5
Now that's actually pretty awesome, lol.
ViciousAnimus 2 years ago 5