---

While that appears to be a purposeful 'mistake', it took 40 years to discover.

---

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:29 pm on June 28, 2009

---

While that appears to be a purposeful 'mistake', it took 40 years to discover.

---

I guess when most scientists find fossils, they don't generally assume that the evidence has been tampered with?

---

---

Quote: from Charolastra at 10:33 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:29 pm on June 28, 2009

---

While that appears to be a purposeful 'mistake', it took 40 years to discover.

---

I guess when most scientists find fossils, they don't generally assume that the evidence has been tampered with?

---

Possibly. But the point is, if, anywhere along the line, an assumption, interpretation, inference is in error, then everything that follows is in question. And it has happened, yet you would still say you "know"?

---

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:40 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Charolastra at 10:33 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:29 pm on June 28, 2009

---

While that appears to be a purposeful 'mistake', it took 40 years to discover.

---

I guess when most scientists find fossils, they don't generally assume that the evidence has been tampered with?

---

Possibly. But the point is, if, anywhere along the line, an assumption, interpretation, inference is in error, then everything that follows is in question. And it has happened, yet you would still say you "know"?

---

Evolution has solid grounds even without a single shred of fossil evidence. At least that's what my science teacher told me and I think he knows his shit.

---

---

Then why is fossil evidence so important? Was he speaking of the Theory of Evolution or simply of evolution?

---

I believe in God, I'm not part of any religious sect, but I do pray on occasion; passively favor science to religious dogma. So there I am.

-------
y'all nukhuhs that be aight wit dat bullshiiit, just hit us up mang

---

Quote: from Aimforthehead at 10:20 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:13 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Aimforthehead at 9:55 pm on June 28, 2009

---

I don't debate semantics.
  If that were true technology would not exist. Unless every time a car is built we some how coincidentally and accidentally get all of the physics and parts in the right order, nothing to do with science or anything.

---

What I said there has nothing to do with semantics. Is a Model T a car? Is a Lamborghini a car? Are they the same thing? What makes them different? Why are they different?

---

 
 They follow the same concept and understandings, it's not as if anything actually changes, we just learn more and can improve more.

---

Yes, and what we know changes along with the knowledge we gain.

---

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:49 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Then why is fossil evidence so important? Was he speaking of the Theory of Evolution or simply of evolution?

---

Can you just tell me what exactly you have in mind and lay it out there? I can tell you have some discrepancies with ToE and I want to know what they are.

I believe in God, I'm not part of any religious sect, but I do pray on occasion; passively favor science to religious dogma. So there I am.

---

My only 'agenda' here is questioning how you can know something that isn't "proven" and may have discrepancies in the evidence that favors it. I'm not trying to discredit it.

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Bohica

---

My only 'agenda' here is questioning how you can know something that isn't "proven" and may have discrepancies in the evidence that favors it. I'm not trying to discredit it.

---

I'd like to think scientific inquiry and it's conclusions can be accepted without even a shred of faith. Don't you like to think that?

-------
y'all nukhuhs that be aight wit dat bullshiiit, just hit us up mang

---

Quote: from Charolastra at 10:20 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:15 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Quote: from Charolastra at 9:53 pm on June 28, 2009

---

Are we really supposed to interpret anything though? Or infer.

---

Do you believe scientists never interpret their findings? Or infer anything from those findings?

---

Scientists definitely do interpret. Often times interpretations can be used as models to explain an observed phenomenon.  

 There's a certain threshold that you seemingly can't cross in scientific inquiry or it becomes pseudo-science.

---

But a misinterpretation can still be 'accepted' and used as a 'truth'. In which case, what you "know" is not the truth. For example, the Piltdown Man. While that appears to be a purposeful 'mistake', it took 40 years to discover. How many unintentional mistakes might there be?

---

No, it did not take 40 years to discover. They considered it an anomaly or forgery almost instantly, because clear findings of Australopeticus africanus contradicted the Piltdown man. After all, how could fossils end up in England when they where exclusively found in Africa? It did take 40 years to develop the exact chemical tools to conclusively prove it as a forgery. Also, the findings of A. africanus was more than convincing to rule out the Piltdown man as relevant. No one has ever used the Piltdown man as evidence for evolution. No one has ever seriously claimed that the Piltdown man was evidence for evolution. In fact, if the Piltdown man was not a forgery, evolution would be disproven. This is because it would have conflicted with A. africanus findings.

What you also fail to take into account is that 1) the disproval of false findings was the result of the scientific methodology of self-correction, not creationists and that 2) the number of fossils we currently have in storage rank in the  billions and billions, so just because one was a forgery does not put into questions these billions of fossils. Holocaust deniers do the same thing; they point out inconsistencies in a single eyewitness account and then claim that this overturns the massive amount of converging evidence for the Holocaust. This is not the case.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

So you reject common ancestry between humans and the other great apes? Then why is there so much scientific evidence for this conclusion? Do you also reject universal common descent? Why do you do this when there is so much evidence for this? Independently discovered phylogenetic trees ranging from areas such as biochemistry, paleontology, molecular biology, embryology, comparative anatomy, evolutionary psychology, biogeography line up seamlessly showing the conclusion of universal common descent. Why is this? Why does these findings also line up seamlessly with data from the sequencing of endogenous retroviruses.

Was all this evidence planted by an evil and malicious god in order to lie and deceive mankind?

---

"Do you Believe in Evolution"
It is what I believe. Whether or not it is backed up is a whole different thing, just like Christianity. There was no records of back in the early days, minus the rare skeleton, and so it is left up to guesswork on how humans were evolved into what they are today.

-------
All night restaurant, North Kildonan. Luke warm coffee tastes like soap.
I trace your outline in spilled sugar, killing time and killing hope

Check out my photgraphy

---

Quote: from Moridin at 1:31 pm on June 28, 2009

---

So you reject common ancestry between humans and the other great apes? Then why is there so much scientific evidence for this conclusion? Do you also reject universal common descent? Why do you do this when there is so much evidence for this? Independently discovered phylogenetic trees ranging from areas such as biochemistry, paleontology, molecular biology, embryology, comparative anatomy, evolutionary psychology, biogeography line up seamlessly showing the conclusion of universal common descent. Why is this? Why does these findings also line up seamlessly with data from the sequencing of endogenous retroviruses.

Was all this evidence planted by an evil and malicious god in order to lie and deceive mankind?

---

 

"Do you Believe in Evolution"
It is what I believe. Whether or not it is backed up is a whole different thing, just like Christianity. There was no records of back in the early days, minus the rare skeleton, and so it is left up to guesswork on how humans were evolved into what they are today.

---

Why would you believe in it if it's not backed up?

Evolution is not guess work. It started out as a hypothesis by Darwin, because of what he observed. Since then scientific studies have continually supported evolution and developed our understanding of it.

Post edited at 1:39 pm on June 29, 2009 by Before

---

Quote: from Moridin at 1:31 pm on June 28, 2009

---

So you reject common ancestry between humans and the other great apes? Then why is there so much scientific evidence for this conclusion? Do you also reject universal common descent? Why do you do this when there is so much evidence for this? Independently discovered phylogenetic trees ranging from areas such as biochemistry, paleontology, molecular biology, embryology, comparative anatomy, evolutionary psychology, biogeography line up seamlessly showing the conclusion of universal common descent. Why is this? Why does these findings also line up seamlessly with data from the sequencing of endogenous retroviruses.  

 Was all this evidence planted by an evil and malicious god in order to lie and deceive mankind?

---

"Do you Believe in Evolution"  
It is what I believe. Whether or not it is backed up is a whole different thing, just like Christianity. There was no records of back in the early days, minus the rare skeleton, and so it is left up to guesswork on how humans were evolved into what they are today.

---

But don't you understand that in science, we use evidence that allows us to know that something is true, rather than just having faith in it.

Actually, there are billions and billions of fossils and a massive amount of data from many, many diverse areas.

I ask you again

Independently discovered phylogenetic trees ranging from areas such as biochemistry, paleontology, molecular biology, embryology, comparative anatomy, evolutionary psychology, biogeography line up seamlessly showing the conclusion of universal common descent. Why is this? Why does these findings also line up seamlessly with data from the sequencing of endogenous retroviruses?

If evolution is somehow false or insecure, why does all the available evidence point to this conclusion?

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)