Fossil Fumbles Damage Darwinism

CEH ^ | January 19, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Jan 19, 2009 — Three recent fossil finds are rearranging Darwin’s tree of life. Pro-Darwinists will interpret this as pruning; Darwin skeptics will interpret it as uprooting....

[GodGunsGuts]

ping!

[Coyoteman]

A double dose of nonsense today placemarker.

[Dustbunny]

Interesting.

[null and void]

“Pro-Darwinists will interpret this as pruning; Darwin skeptics will interpret it as uprooting”

Bingo.

[Riodacat]

[Boxen]

“Archaeopteryx, emu?: Interpreters of the early bird Archaeopteryx have fallen into the bird camp and the reptile camp. Score a point for the bird team: Science Daily reported on X-ray scanning of the fossil that shows its hearing bones were more bird-like than reptile-like. It probably heard like a modern emu, they figure.”

Someone feel like explaining to me how this damages the ToE?

[woollyone]

(Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)

Unfortunately, for you, your tag line works both ways...

"Religious Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

[tioga]

OMGoodness.

[Robert DeLong]

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge

Yet there are many scientists that are religious.

[tioga]

ok, C-man I think W-one has you in check-mate.

[Balding_Eagle]

I'm just passing by and caught this:

"Religious Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That's completely true, fortunately.

That's why true science relies on evidence, not faith or belief.

[metmom]

Science rests on faith that the scientific method is the best means available for learning about our physical universe.

It rests on the faith that scientists can be objective observers.

It rests on the faith that the conditions and physical laws that we observe on earth are the same everywhere for almost all time and are unchanging.

It rests on a lot of assumptions that scientists make every day in their pursuit of data gathering.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[valkyry1]

Some scientists such as coyote make a religion out of their beliefs in science

[GodGunsGuts]

Because yet another Darwinian “transitional” is in the process of biting the dust.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Someone feel like explaining to me how this damages the ToE?

Me too?

I wonder why it is that some Creationists feel compelled to try to topple the fact of Evolution all the time. It’s a quixotic errand serving no purpose. Evolution and Creation coexist beautifully.

Not all Creationists are also Luddites, but some certainly are.

[js1138]

Science rests on faith that the scientific method is the best means available for learning about our physical universe. It rests on the faith that scientists can be objective observers. It rests on the faith that the conditions and physical laws that we observe on earth are the same everywhere for almost all time and are unchanging. It rests on a lot of assumptions that scientists make every day in their pursuit of data gathering.

Don't know about the objective part, but otherwise this is a pretty decent summary.

I'd be interested in how you think science would be improved by assuming that nature is capricious.

[woollyone]

True science?
So scientists do also indeed practice "untrue" science.

Because we know you're not talking about religious folk's notions...you call THAT faith.

SO please define “true” science as opposed to the fake science practiced by scientists.