highwaystar101 said:
Yes science is limited by certain factors, all fields are. But the range of the limitations is what is important, having limitations is not an absolute state. For some fields we can only merely speculate on what is occurring due to a lack of evidence caused by extreme limitations. Other fields are limited, but not limited to any major degree, so we have enough evidence to come up with a reasonable and logical explanation. Evolution falls under the latter. Yes we have a lack of fossils the further back through time you go (as in hundreds of millions of years) for various geological reasons, that is a limitation; but that limitation does not hinder the fact that enough evidence has been collected to show that evolution occurs. Even so, we will work hard to overcome that limitation so that we can better define and understand the concept of evolution. The answer is not complete, but it's good enough to understand what happens. We just always want a better one. If I can suggest some reading, Isaac Asimovs The relativity of wrong. ... Palaeontology goes through an extremely rigorous peer review process with nothing being accepted without hard evidence, and takes years of dedication by millions of people around the world, and has done so for centuries. I don't know why you seem to think that it is guess work with an error rate of 99%. And I don't "trust" these people, I am occasionally sceptical about claims I hear made, and I certainly don't think they hold all the answers. But I am willing to give them credit for their hard earned expertise. ... I've said it before Slimebeast, and each time I'm a little worried about offending, and I apologise if I do. But I shall say it again anyway. I think that you have been presented with enough evidence for evolution over this website (and through other sources I imagine), and I know that you're a very bright person and fully understand what you are being presented with, but you find it conflicting with your faith. As such, whenever I debate you I always feel as though you feel as though you are compelled to refuse evolution, regardless of what you are presented with. Your last paragraph pretty much summed this up for me. |
About paleonthology. The humanoid tree of evolution is very shaky. The lack of missing links, the reinterpretation of fossils (like the one recently, a sensational bipedal guy is now considered four-pedal) is disturbing.
Dont worry, you dont offend me. As Ive said before, your instinct about me, it has some truth. I have a sceptical default stance yes, due to my religious world view. But I can play around with different scenarios, independent scenarios in my head at the same time. Like say.. the topic of evolution of morals as an example. I can see the logic up to a point (the evolution model, how morals evolved). But if I can sneak a big question mark or some doubt in there, why whouldn I? As long as I can truthfully say to my self that it's relevant and not just a "god of the gaps" cop-out. You would too if it was a topic you were very sceptical of. Look, even Dawkins admits that the evolution of morals and altruism is very puzzling. So why do we never see those sort sof confessions by the evo-defenders in forum discussions like these? So it goes both ways, the bias and the rigid positions.
Especially in the bacteria example (lack of diversity and complexity). I actually find it laughable how the evo-guys refuse to acknowledge that problem no matter how I try to present it right under their noses. It's dishonest and weak, and proves that they're just as religious as I am. These debates are comedic from my point of view too.
