Also, breakup of the microbial mats made it much easier to get buried in fine sediment (essential for preserving small details), and having hard skeletons became popular in the earliest Cambrian (a few late Ediacaran fossils have hard skeletons). Both of those led to a lot more preservation of fossils.
1 Like
I think you know I agree with you about that. I think there are much better reasons too. I just don’t think the best reasons check the boxes most Christians would like to believe on more than faith, for example establishing the Bible as God’s intended message for mankind or establishing God’s attributes along the lines of what is already popularly believed.
1 Like
You’re right–I’m sorry. I mainly wanted to agree and point out that my logic really improved with talking with someone who kindly asked me the right questions. I appreciated it more than he realized-- he was an interesting guy who discovered a new species of mosquito in the Himalayas, and was teaching evolutionary biology as our capstone course.
Thanks.
1 Like
There are too many proofs to list here. The theorem "If n is an even [natural number] then n /2 is a natural number. Have you heard of the Pythagorean Theorem? It has over 370 definitive proofs. High school math is a requirement to post on this thread, btw.
Which is why I said
No it isn’t. Just like reading comprehension is not a requirement. 
4 Likes
Since I assume that you now concede that proofs exist (such as A^2 + B^2 = C^2 and thousands of other examples), I will conclude that you may have been referencing Fermat’s Last Theorem. It was first stated in 1637 and only proven in 1994, after 358 years. And in return, I shall concede that reading comprehension is not my strong suit! 
It does seem you agree with Bill about proofs belonging in the domain of mathematics and logic since all your examples are of that sort. You can support or justify your reasons for believing in God but can never settle it once and for all the way you demonstrate the necessary relationship between the sides of a right triangle.
But a religion hating atheist is in the exact same position in making his case against the existence of God. All he can do is offer some reasons for his conviction, but none of them can or ever will be sufficient to convince every fair minded and competent listener to agree.
2 Likes
Just the vast majority.
I certainly know there are many proven theorems but remember we aren’t discussing math. A Theorem is not a theory. There is a difference. You were talking about the scientific method which does not include the concept of “proof” of a theory. From Wikipedia
People often confuse the two but they are different. Consult Wikipedia for Theorem and Scientific Method for further details. Thus endeth the lesson.
1 Like
?? Of course proofs exist. Theorems are proved, theories are supported by evidence. We’re talking about theories.
1 Like
Mathematical theorems are proved based on a set of starting assumptions. All the proofs of the Pythagorean formula depend on accepting Euclidean geometry (in particular, the parallel postulate). It does not work in a non-Euclidean system. Sometimes a similar approach would be possible in science, but it is relatively rare that an adequately limited set of assumptions can be justified as useful in science.
1 Like
Is it that easy? How many mutations do you need to get the added function? I think this is the critical question. A lot of the adaptations we see in the lab are the programmed intelligent design. Once beyond this region, I would argue that all the number of mutations is too great to get added function in a reasonable time. This is the seal of death for naturalism. This all boils down to the second law of thermodynamics if you look at it closely.
Yes once you see the gradual changes in each system. It actually answers a lot of questions that anti-evolution folks bring up.
You might try to argue that, but you would be wrong. And what is “reasonable” given the extremely long time period involved.
I think Mark Twain had a saying about this.
Second law doesn’t apply, but that doesn’t seem to stop people from trying to use it. If you don’t know why it doesn’t apply I would suggest you educate yourself to find out why.
2 Likes
It is on you naturalists to show that it is in the realm of the possible. Again, the burden of proof is on you and hand waving doesn’t count! You need to show how the probability plays out. We are waiting!
Why does the second law not apply? It applies to ALL processes.
I think you offer a perspective that is very closed to alternative thinking. I am a agnostic when it comes to YEC, OEC, ID, or TE. Let each investigate their realm and see what they come up with SCIENTIFICALLY. And that doesn’t mean it is some naturalist propaganda or any other propaganda. I am talking real science which is often in conflict with what is called “real science”.
Don’t get me wrong, for I do hold to an opinion on the subject, but I am perfectly willing to let each side examine the science from their perspective. What I disdain most is the arrogance displayed against some viewpoints when all the perspectives have supporting evidence!
And why do you say Bill_II is a naturalist? Thinking you can dictate what other people believe is far far more preposterous than anything he has said. Sounds like the redneck who calls everyone a communist if they disagree with any of his intolerant nonsense.
The burden of proof is on anyone who expects others to agree. Science provides it with procedures anyone can follow to get the same results.
And the burden of proof is certainly on anyone who claims that a scientific principle applies to a particular situation. Otherwise it is no different than the technobabble of a Star Trek episode.
I am a physicist, and Bill_II is correct. It does not apply to far from equilibrium conditions like the earth, surrounded by an overwhelming increase in entropy so that a small local decrease entropy does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Only an overall increase is required by thermodynamics not a uniform increase in entropy everywhere. Besides you haven’t even shown any decrease in entropy in what you are applying this to, and I wonder if you even know what it actually means.
Wrong. It is open to many alternatives. But it is certainly closed to alternatives which disagree with the demonstrable evidence. It is closed to many other alternatives as well. You think it is a bad thing to know what you believe and why? How extraordinary!
By agnostic, do you mean you simply do not know, or do you mean this in the classical sense that it is unknowable. It is quite reasonable to be agnostic with regards to something where there is no demonstrable evidence like the existence of God. But this is not one of those cases. It is therefore reasonable to conclude your agnosticism is a matter of being uninformed.
It seems the first stratagem of propaganda is to call everything you don’t want people to believe “propaganda” no matter the demonstrable evidence which shows it to be so. I believe the second stratagem right from the communist playbook is to simply to shout loudest repeating your lies over and over again. But many have faith that the truth will reveal the lies eventually, because Jesus admonishes us to open our ears, eyes, and mind and so your children will take a look at what the evidence shows. What a tragedy if you have built their Christian faith on the foundation of lies.
Do you disdain “the arrogance” which holds that racism, rape, and child molestation is wrong – just because those who do these things can concoct reasons and “evidence” that these are good things? Just curious.
There is a big difference between demonstrable evidence and the excuses people come up with for their beliefs.
3 Likes
I am not a naturalist and haven’t said anything that could possible make you think that.
Again with the proof. Theories are not proven. They are supported by evidence and the evidence for evolution is over whelming.
Hopefully you will believe a physicist who explains why. I am no physicist just a lowly engineer and I learned in my basic engineering thermodynamics class that the second law only applies to closed systems near equilibrium. With a massive source of energy coming from the sun the earth doesn’t fit those criteria. The fact that one of the perspectives you are examining propagates this lie should tell you a lot about that perspective. This isn’t a case of supporting or not supporting evidence but of a group deliberately misrepresenting science to support their cause.
And just so you know, I believe in an Intelligent Designer but not in Intelligent Design. And I have a much better source of truth then the ID folks who uniformly seem to want to avoid talking about the designer behind their ID.
4 Likes
That’s not quite right. The simplest form of the 2nd Law (‘the entropy of the system does not decrease’) only applies to closed systems, but the law can be formulated in a way appropriate to isolated and open systems as well. But your main point is correct. Evolution does not violate the 2nd Law. Evolution is just repeated rounds of imperfect reproduction, and if oak trees growing from acorns doesn’t violate the 2nd Law, neither does the evolution of oak trees.
6 Likes
It’s on you supernaturalists to show where the DI-ID is. Naturalists do not have to show a thing. It’s all on show. No magic ever is. Nature is the default. Your mesoscopic incredulity is a by product of your evolution.
2 Likes