Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You realize that it is *incredibly* rare for fossilization to occur? And that even if we lacked any kind of fossil whatsoever that we'd still be able to validate it? So not only are you asking for (what is known to be) the impossible, you are asking for it frivolously.
First, fossils are not rare.
Surely, you won’t consider this article biased for creationism: (see A Conflict Based on the Number of Fossils Observed
http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldearth2.htmsecond, if they were rare, what would you ask for instead to "prove" that those links ever actually existed then? What is your other form of validation?
Here's the thing. Evolution would only need faith if it were arrived at through revelation. As in: religiously.
I disagree with the premise of this paragraph. Faith is not solely through revelation. Let me explain.
For instance, you claimed to not know of a single hole in the theory of evolution. Maybe I didn’t explain what I meant by hole well. What I meant was a gap in
physical evidence. I have no doubt that there is a good explanation for any missing evidence. The
theory itself leaves no room to be questioned, however, all of the physical evidence simply isn’t there red. Not 100%.
You made this statement, in saying that evolution has no holes.
There's never been a bunny fossil found below the [whatever] line that is found nearly globally.
To the fact that evolution has no holes, I give you this link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html
No question we would both consider this website biased. However, it serves my purpose well, since I am not trying to convince you of the fallacy of evolution. I’m merely explaining why I believe what I believe.
Now, I ask you, to take any ONE (or heck, 2 or 3) of the examples and explain how evolution explains the anomaly. I have 0 doubt that there will be an evolutionist explanation that calls creationism lies, just as the link above tried to do in reverse.
After you post the explanation, I will ask you to prove it. (just as we do in the Star Wars vs. forum.) Give me hard factual physical evidence, that nowhere leans on a theory that someone could say “You can’t prove that”
Shouldn’t be too hard to do, if there are no holes in evolution, right?
So your vague intimations that it requires faith are out of line- if you want any respect in terms of scientific consideration (read: want me to take you seriously in any scientific arena)
Interesting really quick that you take the discussion of evolution and spread it over every scientific field. This comes despite your B condition below, which you chose yourself. I don’t know if this is considered a threat? I fail to see what it accomplishes really. I think it was meant to GOAD me into actually debating Evolution vs. Creation with you. But I’ve said repeatedly why I’m not doing that. (besides the fact that we already did it once, long ago.) But you conclusion of this sentence is hardly logical. I’ve stated repeatedly that I’m not a student of evolution. It does not at all mean I’ve never studied other fields.
Which brings me to this sentence of yours, which IMO, made my point for me perfectly. In fact, you summed it up better than I will be able to, as I am a habitually expound on everything.
then you will have to have solid evidence that evolution A). is incapable of explaining [x] or B). that evolution has been extended to cover something it would not explain.
You just said yourself(bolded), that I have to have solid evidence that evolution is incapable of explaining .
Not that evolution has physical evidence of, not that evolution has actually physically proved to be true… no. You asked me to listen to explanations. I’m still not sure I’m getting this across. I apologize for my lack of communication skills on the matter.
I’ll try this: Why are those explanations created for anomalies?
(and you are still the first person who believes in evolution that I have met who asked me to come up with my own anomalies. Every learned person I’ve ever spoken to on the subject already knows more than I do off the top of my head. You acting as though you were unaware of them surprised me. I simply googled problems with evolution, and got over 44 mil results. I mean, surely you have heard of some of them? I don’t deny evolution may have an EXPLANATION for each and every one… but I’m getting ahead of myself.
As I was saying, Why are those explanations created for anomalies? Explanations are figured out for the various anomalies, based on ONE THING. And that one thing is fitting them within the broader theory of evolution. So yes, an explanation is found, and it will usually start out with something along the lines of: for example: “This fossil shouldn’t exist In this sedimentary field. If it actually did, that would disprove evolution” (as you allowed yourself.) So our job is to figure out WHY it is there. So, just painting broad generalizations again, “We believe there must have been upheaval of some sort in this area, so that this animal was buried deeper than the sedimentary level that it should have existed in, or it brought some fossils closer to the surface, and mixed several levels, and THAT is why it is in this level.
Then they have an explanation. But they can’t prove it. Yes, perhaps there are indicators of such an event, perhaps signs of upheaval, but NOTHING to prove that was actually WHY the fossil was in the wrong layer.
They can prove the upheaval, they can reason that the upheaval caused the anomaly, but they can’t PROVE that the upheaval caused the anomaly.
They based the explanation on the fact that evolution is true, and evolution is considered true because no anomaly has ever been found that cannot be explained by it.
I bet I can guess kinda what you are thinking: TJ is a hack. He’s an idiot. He just denied logic. Of COURSE the upheaval caused the anomaly, isn’t that obvious? You are probably writing me off as someone who is unable to comprehend the scientific method. I don’t blame you for reacting like that, but remember, I said from the beginning, I would reject 95% proof, with 5% believing the theory of evolution to start with. I am familiar with the method, but consider this: (and I hope the post hasn’t gotten too long for you to still be considering this)
On this very forum, we have the example of Revan vs. Malak. Revan fights Malak aboard the Star Forge. Revan and Malak are a Jedi and Sith, respectively. Darth Revan has learned many different methods of lightsaber combat from the various Jedi masters. (that is canon I believe, disregard that sentence if I spoke incorrectly)
At the end of their duel, both Revan and Malak have lit lightsabers. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that they fought a straight light-saber/force duel, like EVERY OTHER such confrontation in the history of star wars. However, since the actual fact that Revan beat Malak with a lightsaber is not stated by an omniscient source, and can’t be seen in actual cutscene footage, You and I, and almost every other senior member on this forum, rejects as canon the fact that they fought a lightsaber duel. Its unknown, its improvable. Very probably, but not established fact. Why do we reject this? This flies in the face of the same logic you are using to support evolution. We can easily create an explanation of the fight, that Revan and malak fought with sabers, and all the evidence supports it, but we reject it.
I ask you, why?
(enjoying this tremendously, keep it coming bro. Once again, I have no intention of changing your mind. None. I am merely presenting why I believe what I do.)