Can It Be Science If It's Based On Lies???

[PoliticalChic]

you don't make that case in the op. you state it as fact, but you don't provide any evidence to back up your claim.

Watch this space for further developments.

i'm waiting. please show us the evidence.

Did you misread the OP?

Did you not understand it?


Be honest....you can admit it.

Here....let me spoon feed it to you: the supposed fossil proof of Darwin's theory doesn't exist.

 

[ogibillm]

Watch this space for further developments.

i'm waiting. please show us the evidence.

Did you misread the OP?

Did you not understand it?


Be honest....you can admit it.

Here....let me spoon feed it to you: the supposed fossil proof of Darwin's theory doesn't exist.

you are just stating that, you aren't offering any evidence. granted, i get that it's impossible to prove a negative, but you need to do more than just state something for it to be true.

further, you're just flat out wrong. here's one example of fossil records supporting evolution
Transitional forms

the fossil record is real. it supports the modern theory of evolution since the modern theory of evolutionary theory is based in part on it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


a. "During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." This is a mystery as far as Darwinism is concerned, and not just because of the number of phyla that suddenly arise....but rather because of the number of unique animal forms and structures and modes of organization that unanticipatedly make an appearance!
Brachiopoda, Eldontia, Annelida, Ctenophora, Hyolitha, Echinodermata, Arthropoda, etc."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.


Rapid appearance.....with no fossil trail leading from a prior species! "....known fossil record made their first appearance on earth"......"unanticipatedly...."


b. Chinese Paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen , states the following when comparing the Cambrian explosion to the geological history of the earth :
"Can be likened to one minute in 24 hours of one day ."
Cui Lili , Traditional theory of evolution challenged , Beijing Reviews , March 31 - April 6 , 1997 , 10 .



Yet, Darwin-groupies abound!

And become incensed when the lie of 'fossil-proof' is exposed.



So.....if it isn't science.....what the heck is 'Darwinian evolution'?

 

[PredFan]

With all due respect PC, your points are confused, taken incorrectly or out of context, and you go on and build these elaborate strawmen based in them.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete and that isn't the fault of Darwin. It's in the strict requirements of conditions to create a fossil. Evolution can be demonstrated in the little bit of the fossil record that we do have but the fossil record alone can't prove evolution, and isn't what Darwin based his theory on.

 

[ogibillm]

PC, you may find this article interesting.
Evolution: Library: The Cambrian Explosion

 

[PredFan]

No one is lying about evolution. There are mistakes, but not lies. The fossil record supports evolution but it alone cannot prove it. The fossil record is too incomplete.

 

[Moonglow]

9. "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten

Because the period before fossils were found to support the theory of evolution, the Space Aliens cloned us and put us on this planet since their planet was dying....so easy. I don't know why everyone else doesn't see it that way...

 

[PoliticalChic]

i'm waiting. please show us the evidence.

Did you misread the OP?

Did you not understand it?


Be honest....you can admit it.

Here....let me spoon feed it to you: the supposed fossil proof of Darwin's theory doesn't exist.

you are just stating that, you aren't offering any evidence. granted, i get that it's impossible to prove a negative, but you need to do more than just state something for it to be true.

further, you're just flat out wrong. here's one example of fossil records supporting evolution
Transitional forms

the fossil record is real. it supports the modern theory of evolution since the modern theory of evolutionary theory is based in part on it.

Surely you are more astute than that.


Aren't you?


I draw your attention to vague 'escapy' words meant to suggest what they cannot prove.

In your link: "... It would appear..." and "...we would expect..."


But real scientists demand more than merely expectations.

Gareth Nelson, fossil expert of the American Museum of Natural History, in NYC, stated:
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
Gareth Nelson, "Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969)," in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, "The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography--25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978)," Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.


He has also said something that applies to the link you've provided:
"But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.”


Superstition....that's what Darwin's theory is.
You certainly can accept it based on some sort of faith, but not based on any real proof.

Take that under advisement....and look more closely at "proof" involving the fossil record.
It doesn't provide same.



Further.....ask yourself, why is Darwin pushed so fervently? I mean, assuming that said proof is a myth....what is the value of the theory?

 

[Moonglow]

Superstition....that's what Darwin's theory is.
You certainly can accept it based on some sort of faith, but not based on any real proof.

and most religions...

 

[ogibillm]

Did you misread the OP?

Did you not understand it?


Be honest....you can admit it.

Here....let me spoon feed it to you: the supposed fossil proof of Darwin's theory doesn't exist.

you are just stating that, you aren't offering any evidence. granted, i get that it's impossible to prove a negative, but you need to do more than just state something for it to be true.

further, you're just flat out wrong. here's one example of fossil records supporting evolution
Transitional forms

the fossil record is real. it supports the modern theory of evolution since the modern theory of evolutionary theory is based in part on it.

Surely you are more astute than that.


Aren't you?


I draw your attention to vague 'escapy' words meant to suggest what they cannot prove.

In your link: "... It would appear..." and "...we would expect..."

yes, when speaking about the nostrils of the Pakicetus, which were at the front, and then the gray whale, they said it would appear that the nostrils moved from the front of the skull to the top, and so we would expect to find an intermediate species with nostrils higher than the front but lower than the top - and what do you know it they show that with Aetiocetus.

so they formed a hypothesis and then, looking at the fossil evidence, found that hypothesis to be valid.

But real scientists demand more than merely expectations.

Gareth Nelson, fossil expert of the American Museum of Natural History, in NYC, stated:
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
Gareth Nelson, "Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969)," in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, "The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography--25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978)," Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.


He has also said something that applies to the link you've provided:
"But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.”


Superstition....that's what Darwin's theory is.
You certainly can accept it based on some sort of faith, but not based on any real proof.

Take that under advisement....and look more closely at "proof" involving the fossil record.
It doesn't provide same.



Further.....ask yourself, why is Darwin pushed so fervently? I mean, assuming that said proof is a myth....what is the value of the theory?

you do understand that by saying that the fossil record is only data is not a refutation of evolution but an acknowledgement that study needs to continue.

and that data, the fossil record, supports evolution.

unless you have something that disproves it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

With all due respect PC, your points are confused, taken incorrectly or out of context, and you go on and build these elaborate strawmen based in them.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete and that isn't the fault of Darwin. It's in the strict requirements of conditions to create a fossil. Evolution can be demonstrated in the little bit of the fossil record that we do have but the fossil record alone can't prove evolution, and isn't what Darwin based his theory on.

Not only am I absolutely correct on the facts, but folks who make their living as scientists know what I am posting to be true.
There are no 'strawmen,' no Biblical reference, just real science.



Now, take this bit of absurdity that you post:
"Evolution can be demonstrated in the little bit of the fossil record that we do have but the fossil record alone can't prove evolution, and isn't what Darwin based his theory on."

No, evolution cannot be demonstrated....merely conjectured.

Fossil record?
Did you see what I just posted from Dr. Nelson?

Would you like to argue your experienced with his?



How about Eugene Koonin:
"Eugene V. Koonin (born October 26, 1956) is an American biologist and Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health,[1] Bethesda, MD, USA . He is a recognised expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology.

Koonin gained a Master of Science in 1978 and a PhD in 1983 in Molecular Biology from Department of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, USSR. He conducted research in Computational Biology at the Institute of Poliomyelitis and Institute of Microbiology, Moscow (USSR) in 1985-1991. He has worked at the NCBI since 1991 and is Editor of Genome Analysis section in Trends in Genetics. Koonin has an Erdős number of 2."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Koonin


In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”

So….Darwin was wrong? "In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”
Biology Direct | Full text | The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



I don't mean to upset you folks, but at some point you'll either have to recognize that lies are being told...and called science.

And then you may begin to ask why it is so very essential for Darwin to be correct.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Really,

Science is based off of observations within the real world. One area to think about is within viruses. We're constantly having to figure out ways to stay ahead of evolution when it comes to deadly diseases and they adapt really fast...WE can also see evolution within a fairly short time span in different adaptions within the same species.(Birds, different beaks, etc) The only lie is believing some book written by a group of guys 2,000 years ago and believing it as truth. If that is the drive behind your op then I feel sorry for you.

I'll stick with science!

 

[Moonglow]

You could debate it even more by adding that God is just a theory and has never been proven..

 

[PoliticalChic]

you are just stating that, you aren't offering any evidence. granted, i get that it's impossible to prove a negative, but you need to do more than just state something for it to be true.

further, you're just flat out wrong. here's one example of fossil records supporting evolution
Transitional forms

the fossil record is real. it supports the modern theory of evolution since the modern theory of evolutionary theory is based in part on it.

Surely you are more astute than that.


Aren't you?


I draw your attention to vague 'escapy' words meant to suggest what they cannot prove.

In your link: "... It would appear..." and "...we would expect..."

yes, when speaking about the nostrils of the Pakicetus, which were at the front, and then the gray whale, they said it would appear that the nostrils moved from the front of the skull to the top, and so we would expect to find an intermediate species with nostrils higher than the front but lower than the top - and what do you know it they show that with Aetiocetus.

so they formed a hypothesis and then, looking at the fossil evidence, found that hypothesis to be valid.

But real scientists demand more than merely expectations.

Gareth Nelson, fossil expert of the American Museum of Natural History, in NYC, stated:
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
Gareth Nelson, "Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969)," in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, "The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography--25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978)," Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.


He has also said something that applies to the link you've provided:
"But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.”


Superstition....that's what Darwin's theory is.
You certainly can accept it based on some sort of faith, but not based on any real proof.

Take that under advisement....and look more closely at "proof" involving the fossil record.
It doesn't provide same.



Further.....ask yourself, why is Darwin pushed so fervently? I mean, assuming that said proof is a myth....what is the value of the theory?

you do understand that by saying that the fossil record is only data is not a refutation of evolution but an acknowledgement that study needs to continue.

and that data, the fossil record, supports evolution.

unless you have something that disproves it?

1. So....you are admitting that Dr. Nelson's statements are....dispositive?

Good start.


2. Now for this:
"you do understand that by saying that the fossil record is only data is not a refutation of evolution but an acknowledgement that study needs to continue."

a. The OP makes clear that the fossil record is the primary basis for the theory.
That's directly from the National Academy of Sciences.


b. "...not a refutation of evolution..."
As soon as you folks realize that I am correct re: Darwin's theory, you pretend that I am claiming that evolution itself is under attack.
First, I have been very specific, and secondly, you seem unaware of the fact that Darwin's is not the only theory of evolution put forward by scientists.
Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, the opposite of Darwin's, is accepted by some.
There are other theories as well.


c. "....acknowledgement that study needs to continue."
Do you realize that the search for proof of Darwin's theory is 155 years old, and that there are more scientists working today that all of previous history combined.....and still no fossil record proof nor observations of one species becoming another?


I ask again.....what could possibly explain the fact that lies are used to advance a flawed theory?

 

[ogibillm]

With all due respect PC, your points are confused, taken incorrectly or out of context, and you go on and build these elaborate strawmen based in them.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete and that isn't the fault of Darwin. It's in the strict requirements of conditions to create a fossil. Evolution can be demonstrated in the little bit of the fossil record that we do have but the fossil record alone can't prove evolution, and isn't what Darwin based his theory on.

Not only am I absolutely correct on the facts, but folks who make their living as scientists know what I am posting to be true.
There are no 'strawmen,' no Biblical reference, just real science.



Now, take this bit of absurdity that you post:
"Evolution can be demonstrated in the little bit of the fossil record that we do have but the fossil record alone can't prove evolution, and isn't what Darwin based his theory on."

No, evolution cannot be demonstrated....merely conjectured.

Fossil record?
Did you see what I just posted from Dr. Nelson?

Would you like to argue your experienced with his?



How about Eugene Koonin:
"Eugene V. Koonin (born October 26, 1956) is an American biologist and Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health,[1] Bethesda, MD, USA . He is a recognised expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology.

Koonin gained a Master of Science in 1978 and a PhD in 1983 in Molecular Biology from Department of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, USSR. He conducted research in Computational Biology at the Institute of Poliomyelitis and Institute of Microbiology, Moscow (USSR) in 1985-1991. He has worked at the NCBI since 1991 and is Editor of Genome Analysis section in Trends in Genetics. Koonin has an Erdős number of 2."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Koonin


In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”

So….Darwin was wrong? "In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”
Biology Direct | Full text | The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



I don't mean to upset you folks, but at some point you'll either have to recognize that lies are being told...and called science.

And then you may begin to ask why it is so very essential for Darwin to be correct.

at best you can say that the theory of evolution doesn't explain the diversity of life on the planet to your satisfaction, you cannot claim that any lies have been told.

also, you haven't shown that evolution doesn't occur, just that you have questions about how it happens - which is fine - but you mistake your ignorance for some sort of conspiracy to... what exactly?

so again, at best you can raise questions - and some of them don't have easy answers but none of them negate the theory of evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you may find this article interesting.
Evolution: Library: The Cambrian Explosion

I've posted extensively about the Cambrian explosion, and about the Burgess Shale.

Be specific and tell me exactly what you'd like me to counter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one is lying about evolution. There are mistakes, but not lies. The fossil record supports evolution but it alone cannot prove it. The fossil record is too incomplete.

"No one is lying about evolution."

Of course they are.

The Academy reports quoted are both specific and fallacious.



"The fossil record is too incomplete."
Bingo!

 

[ogibillm]

Surely you are more astute than that.


Aren't you?


I draw your attention to vague 'escapy' words meant to suggest what they cannot prove.

In your link: "... It would appear..." and "...we would expect..."

yes, when speaking about the nostrils of the Pakicetus, which were at the front, and then the gray whale, they said it would appear that the nostrils moved from the front of the skull to the top, and so we would expect to find an intermediate species with nostrils higher than the front but lower than the top - and what do you know it they show that with Aetiocetus.

so they formed a hypothesis and then, looking at the fossil evidence, found that hypothesis to be valid.

But real scientists demand more than merely expectations.

Gareth Nelson, fossil expert of the American Museum of Natural History, in NYC, stated:
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
Gareth Nelson, "Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969)," in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, "The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography--25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978)," Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.


He has also said something that applies to the link you've provided:
"But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.”


Superstition....that's what Darwin's theory is.
You certainly can accept it based on some sort of faith, but not based on any real proof.

Take that under advisement....and look more closely at "proof" involving the fossil record.
It doesn't provide same.



Further.....ask yourself, why is Darwin pushed so fervently? I mean, assuming that said proof is a myth....what is the value of the theory?

you do understand that by saying that the fossil record is only data is not a refutation of evolution but an acknowledgement that study needs to continue.

and that data, the fossil record, supports evolution.

unless you have something that disproves it?

1. So....you are admitting that Dr. Nelson's statements are....dispositive?

Good start.


2. Now for this:
"you do understand that by saying that the fossil record is only data is not a refutation of evolution but an acknowledgement that study needs to continue."

a. The OP makes clear that the fossil record is the primary basis for the theory.
That's directly from the National Academy of Sciences.


b. "...not a refutation of evolution..."
As soon as you folks realize that I am correct re: Darwin's theory, you pretend that I am claiming that evolution itself is under attack.
First, I have been very specific, and secondly, you seem unaware of the fact that Darwin's is not the only theory of evolution put forward by scientists.
Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, the opposite of Darwin's, is accepted by some.
There are other theories as well.


c. "....acknowledgement that study needs to continue."
Do you realize that the search for proof of Darwin's theory is 155 years old, and that there are more scientists working today that all of previous history combined.....and still no fossil record proof nor observations of one species becoming another?

I ask again.....what could possibly explain the fact that lies are used to advance a flawed theory?

you haven't shown any lies at all. ever.
further, whether you want to accept it or not, evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on the planet.

and the fossil record does support the theory of evolution. there are clear, traceable paths from modern animals and plants to their ancestors.

 

[ogibillm]

PC, you may find this article interesting.
Evolution: Library: The Cambrian Explosion

I've posted extensively about the Cambrian explosion, and about the Burgess Shale.

Be specific and tell me exactly what you'd like me to counter.

i don't want you to counter anything. i want you to read and learn.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten

Because the period before fossils were found to support the theory of evolution, the Space Aliens cloned us and put us on this planet since their planet was dying....so easy. I don't know why everyone else doesn't see it that way...

I can't tell if you are an absolute idiot....or you've read Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981

Which is it???

'Fess up!