Science vs. Creationism

[One Brow]

It(fossilization) ordinarily is a chemical process that takes years of action by silica-bearing water or perhaps other mineral values percolating through the soil with relatively little oxygen, perhaps water whose oxygen content has been consumed by other organic debris in the soil. . . . I don't think we have even developed laboratory methods that could do this inside a year.

I agree with your paragraph about how fast fossilization occurs on an individual fossil. Taken by itself, my statement does not mean what I was trying to say. Rather, I was trying to dispute the notion that fossils would occur at a steady rate over the eons.

I spent some time examining some geological contact lines between fossilized strata and unfossilized strata. It seemed in my specific sites that it was a very sharp line of demarcation. Rates of deposition of carbonate rock vary from place to place. In some sites it can be two or three feet in one year, but the general rate is likely a few hundred feet in anything from ten million to a hundred million years. But what has not been reported is a transitional layer where a few fossils are present grading into something with much more, except in places where the conditions for fossilization were marginal and then improved. . . ..

Exactly. Rivers change course, populations change habitat, etc. There is no reason to expect a smooth fossil transition.

the sense I get from what I have read or seen would lend more credence to the argumentative position that life came on very rapidly. . . . stabilized for millions to hundreds of millions of years, and then made remarkably sudden changes. . . .over and over again. Probably due to sudden changes in gross chemical mass equations or sensational climate changes. . . .

Life "came on" about 3.5 billion years ago, over the course of about .5 billion years. I don't see that as "rapidly". However, seeing fossils stabilize and then change suddenly sounds like what we should expect when a planet has periods of stability followed by periods of sudden change.

 

[One Brow]

"God created everything".
Evolutionary or other theories are not more scientific than this proposition.

Until you can design a test for that statement, they are.

 

[Tarkanian]

Until you can design a test for that statement, they are.

Ehmm, actually, ditto!
Evolutionary theories are not that "falsifiable" as many believe!
speaking of "believe", it all boils down to "what one opts to believe".
therefore,
belief=belief=belief=belief

 

[One Brow]

Evolutionary theories are not that "falsifiable" as many believe!

Cambrian rabbit.

 

[Tarkanian]

Cambrian rabbit.

shall not falsify the theory, for it is a hoax.
if it were not, again we would have seen many evolutionists coming up with some other explanations that would have kept the theory "afloat".
it is like marxism actually. When one talks about the Soviet blunder, my marxist bros say "ehm u know; twas not the real marxism" etc..."
Evolution has not been falsified nor has it ever been verified beyond all reasonable doubt.
Even in the eyes of a Vienna-circle positivist (verifiers, that is), evolutionary science is not real science; it is still just a theory.

 

[One Brow]

shall not falsify the theory, for it is a hoax.

Not a hoax, a standard. If you find a mammal fossil in Cambrian rock, with no sign of digging/etc., it would turn all of evolutionary theory on its head.

if it were not, again we would have seen many evolutionists coming up with some other explanations that would have kept the theory "afloat".

Science theories do change with the evidence, yes. The Cambrian rabbit would not invalidate the work of Lenski, nor the twin-nested heirarchy, etc., but it would force major changes, nonetheless.

Evolution has not been falsified nor has it ever been verified beyond all reasonable doubt.

Describe a standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt", and then we'll see.

Even in the eyes of a Vienna-circle positivist (verifiers, that is), evolutionary science is not real science; it is still just a theory.

Theories are the major component of real science.

 

[Tarkanian]

Theories are the major component of real science.

...provided that they are proven.

edit: I was referring to the "cambrian rabbit incident" BTW.

 

[Tarkanian]

Not a hoax, a standard. If you find a mammal fossil in Cambrian rock, with no sign of digging/etc., it would turn all of evolutionary theory on its head.

this is not how it works.
One is not under a need or pressure to turn "the theory" on its head, for that theory does not enjoy an already-proven validty, which is a position of strength.
First, the theory has to come up with more convincing and exact proofs, so that it may dubbed the paradigm.
Lacking thereof, evolutionary theory still is the paradigm in biology and related sciences, tho that position is not that warranted.

 

[One Brow]

...provided that they are proven.

edit: I was referring to the "cambrian rabbit incident" BTW.

Scientific theories don't get "proven", they get their predictions verified or get disconfirmed. The Theory of Evolution has been tested and verifed many times. It's at least as verified as the Atomic Theory or Heliocentric Theory.

this is not how it works.
One is not under a need or pressure to turn "the theory" on its head, for that theory does not enjoy an already-proven validty, which is a position of strength.

Again, the Theory of Evolution has been verified many times, in many different ways.

First, the theory has to come up with more convincing and exact proofs, so that it may dubbed the paradigm.

Scientific theories don't get proofs. There is no proof for heliocentrism (the earth moving around the sun), nor that matter is made of atoms. There are only verifications of predictions. What's an example of a verification you would accept for evolutionary theory?

Lacking thereof, evolutionary theory still is the paradigm in biology and related sciences, tho that position is not that warranted.

What is the proper paradigm?

 

[babe]

I'm finding this discussion productive. IMO, Tark would develop some more tolerance for evolutionary theory if he studied genetics at the college level for a semester, and maybe present the contrary position with responsive details about why "theory=theory", which I feel is essentially true, for the conditions we are under of weak or partial proofs of expansive assertions. . . .

And OB is right about the fact that the evolutionary scientists are doing a whole hellava lot of work filling in the gaps, and doing it on a stronger scientific method basis than many ID proponents. The ID proponents are taking too narrow a basis for their position. It would demand more respect if there were a minimal base of assumptions, like pre-defined notions of what "God" is. Saying that intelligence exists in broad distribution in living things, man included, would make it possible to discuss the specifics of what "intelligence" may, or may not be, adducing examples in the fabric of life and specific living creatures.

I find my cows are pretty intelligent, really.

But on the other hand, trying in incorporate specific denials of broad human notions, such as "man's special place" in nature, correspondingly weakens the materialist/atheist position as well.

I'm pretty sure, when it's all said and done, God will be an established fact of nature, and man's special place will deserve a pre-eminent status in the established knowledge base. People have to be pretty determined "deniers" to stand on the belief/theory that either God or man are irrelevant to the course of progress for life in this universe.

I find it ironic that the people who are most determined to deny God/man values are at the same time the ones trying to take the lead in "saving the planet" and establishing globalist management.

What a hoot.

 

[Tarkanian]

I'm finding this discussion productive. IMO, Tark would develop some more tolerance for evolutionary theory if he studied genetics at the college level for a semester, and maybe present the contrary position with responsive details about why "theory=theory", which I feel is essentially true, for the conditions we are under of weak or partial proofs of expansive assertions. . . .

And OB is right about the fact that the evolutionary scientists are doing a whole hellava lot of work filling in the gaps, and doing it on a stronger scientific method basis than many ID proponents. The ID proponents are taking too narrow a basis for their position. It would demand more respect if there were a minimal base of assumptions, like pre-defined notions of what "God" is. Saying that intelligence exists in broad distribution in living things, man included, would make it possible to discuss the specifics of what "intelligence" may, or may not be, adducing examples in the fabric of life and specific living creatures.

I find my cows are pretty intelligent, really.

But on the other hand, trying in incorporate specific denials of broad human notions, such as "man's special place" in nature, correspondingly weakens the materialist/atheist position as well.

I'm pretty sure, when it's all said and done, God will be an established fact of nature, and man's special place will deserve a pre-eminent status in the established knowledge base. People have to be pretty determined "deniers" to stand on the belief/theory that either God or man are irrelevant to the course of progress for life in this universe.

I find it ironic that the people who are most determined to deny God/man values are at the same time the ones trying to take the lead in "saving the planet" and establishing globalist management.

What a hoot.

I do have tolerance and respect for the evolutionary theory, babe.
It is just that I have rather outdated info on the matter and in this discussion I am basing my arguments on these.
(That said, I am arrogant enough to claim that I am well-versed in the philosophy of science).
I am down for an educational reading, if you'd kindly recommend one.

 

[Tarkanian]

Scientific theories don't get "proven", they get their predictions verified or get disconfirmed. The Theory of Evolution has been tested and verifed many times. It's at least as verified as the Atomic Theory or Heliocentric Theory.



Again, the Theory of Evolution has been verified many times, in many different ways.



Scientific theories don't get proofs. There is no proof for heliocentrism (the earth moving around the sun), nor that matter is made of atoms. There are only verifications of predictions. What's an example of a verification you would accept for evolutionary theory?



What is the proper paradigm?

verifications?
for the evolutionary theory?
care to elaborate on them?
I only know of some "learned guesses" in the form of "X must have learned flying somehow" or "Y must have learned how to hunt and additionallty found a way to pass this newly found talent to genetic structures" (just like the diversity of Galapagos made Darwin have a fantasy/vision).
These are just learned guesses from where I stand.
As a proof = verification; I would like to see the remnants of an in-betweener (now extinct formsthat is)
No, fish is not that, if it does not have any legs and/or not move on land.