However the statistics, fact or probability, shows the population consensus trending towards Christianity and using Dawins' timeline in coralation he is dust.

they themselves define fact as probability

i thought cro-magnon was homo sapiens cro-magnon? majestic?

However the statistics, fact or probability, shows the population consensus trending towards Christianity and using Dawins' timeline in coralation he is dust.

Argumentum ad numerum

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

Majestic_Lizard_returns
However the statistics, fact or probability, shows the population consensus trending towards Christianity and using Dawins' timeline in coralation he is dust.


I am not confused as to the definition of "ad numerum". You stated that statistically more people were in favor of Creationism than Evolution as a reason for supporting one over the other. That is the "ad numerum" logical fallacy. Honestly, I do often get them confused but in this instance I did not.

As you can see from your own definition:
Argumentum ad numerum

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

Bright1 ever hear of a term such as "Cognitive dissonance" ....

I've referenced a bunch but because you threw them out as quickly in these postings as as they were tossed by the scientific community in general, I guess you forgot them.

Besides the actual tree is upside down when you really think about it since there are a lot less species today than there were in the Cambrian Explosion.

The tree view is nothing more than an ad hoc explanation scientists came up with because the chain view wasn't working so well due to a lack of missing transitional specimens which in turn negates your "millions of them" argument.

What happened to Uniformatism then?

Are we now starting to believe in a catalysmic style of strata deposit?

If there is a lack of understanding of geology you'll have to blame it on the teachers and the ones they got the information from.

Well isn't that the industry accepted answer to belittle any of your own who no longer believe the lie?

Incredible that a find like that would be relegated to a basement

I see, so even though it was found by an expert, Johannes Hurzeler of the Museum of Natural History in Basel, since he identified it as something that didn't fit in the accepted order of things your opinion is more valid than what he concluded.

The rest of your answers on these tracks, tell me you really didn't bother to read the article to see who did the testing, what they found and why they came to the conclusion that many were bona fide human footprints of great antiquity.

Uhuh.

It would be my pleasure most assuredly. Your ability to reduce my arguments by your masterful use of opinion, assumption and conjecture has left me in breathless awe.

I think the post wherein this appeared was one of the earliest points that touched off the latest round. I did want to revisit this, as there is a potential alternate interpretation that I don't believe was mentioned. As far as I could see from the article that was referenced, there was no indication that those in the putative 12% (who believe evolution without a divine being is the most reasonable model) were actively attempting to convince anyone that theirs was a majority view.

Again, I see nothing that directly contradicts the fact that there is a wealth of evidence, nor do I see how the assertion that one group of people is attempting to make a statement (with or without any record of that statement having even been implied) decreases the believability of a theory.

This might be viewed as petty, but I never did receive any information on these. I'll ask again. Civilly. Could you please (mail me, if necessary) provide some of these facts, as well as the names of some of the scientists you reference?

Two things on this one. I don't understand what you mean regarding "objective verification" of "missing links." This seems a bit oxymoronic. If there are "links" or transitional fossils to be found, is there no concensus that they have yet to be found?

Secondly, while I understand that the fossil record is one of the sources for information regarding the theory of evolution, it is not the sum total of the theory; thus, the theory may still be accurate, regardless of how complete/incomplete the fossil record may be found.

I felt it necessary to reiterate. Fossils exist. Many fossils are the preserved remains of extinct organisms. Fossilised remains of organisms tend to display characteristics of those organisms. Many of the organisms whose fossilised remains have features of apparently dissimilar organisms. These are facts, yes? The theory of evolution at one point predicted the probability of humans discovering, within the fossil record, animals or plants with similarities to two or more dissimilar animals alive today. Such have been observed. I don't understand how this is countered by "factual" evidence that such fossils are non-existent. Please explain.

So what similarities would qualify an extinct organism to be the "missing link" between two or more disimilar animals that are alive today?

Last time. Tree not chain. No links.

It is my own subjective opinion on it. I don't know about anyone else but the findings of that poll was very suprising. Between this site and another that I used to frequent, I was given the distinct impression that I was in the minority that didn't believe in Darwinism instead of being part of the almost 90% that believe in some type of intelligent design.

The core of Darwinism is based on assumptions and conjecture, hence it is called a theory. The evidence attempts to legitimize it by the interpretation of the data. What decreases the believability of this particular theory in my opinion it alternative interpretations that appear even more valid which lead to a different conclusion about the origins of man, the universe and the world we live in.

So you don't think the Evolutionists are attempting to convinvce the rest that they have the most correct and majority view? Why is it then that it is the only thing taught in the schools and every attempt to bring in a different model is opposed in any way it can be?

Uhmm ok, so are you stating this: "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" or that even if the evidence never existed, Evolution/Darwinism would still be true?

So what similarities would qualify an extinct organism to be the "missing link/branch" between two or more disimilar animals that are alive today?

these people had better not expect God's help in time of need

the (evolution) data and theory is not nearly as conclusive or self-evident as you would like to think or make it out to be?

Again, however, I must challenge your interpretation of the poll. I don't believe that the reference was to a 90% belief in design, intelligent or otherwise. Beyond that, however, I myself was never polled, so I know for a fact that I don't fit into any of those percentages. Based on this, I would like to know if you were contacted for this poll, or if you are simply broadening the statistics to include yourself in that 90%.

Clarification. Darwinism (to include the referenced core) is a straw man. The core of evolution is an observation and a subsequent inductively logical interpretation made independently by two men, only one of whom (Darwin) managed to publish a treatise that, ultimately, revolutionised biology. The evidence used in support of the theory does nothing on its own. Scientists use the evidence to test and evaluate the potential accuracy and utility of the theory, which works just fine. There are new sets of evidence, granted, but they have yet to be studied to verify their legitimacy as evidence, as well as to glean all available facts regarding them before they can be used to test and verify or debunk the theory. Please provide some of the evidences and alternative interpretations that invalidate the theory of evolution, as well as the theory that they more reasonably validate.

I don't think that. Of course, I'm not given to conspiracy theory. I live my life, others live theirs. I have no agenda, so I live and let live. Evolution is taught in schools because it is the most complete model, and takes into account and accounts for the most data. I'm afraid I don't know of any other model that can compete. Let me clarify, I know of no other [u]scientific[/u] model. Certainly, ID is a model, and, possibly given enough scientific backing, might be able to compete. However, the simple fact that it is a faith-based model with only rudimentary attachment to science and grounding only in ignorance and superstition simply invalidates it as a scientific model.Couple with this the illogical fanaticism and all but blatant political agenda of its proponents in the public sphere, and you've got something that, quite honestly, should be taught in school, albeit, in my mind as a definite illustration of how not to ever do science. Or politics. Probably not even religion.

What I was saying is simple. There are a lot more evidences for the theory of evolution than just the fossil record. Beyond that, the simple fact that the record appears to be incomplete is not a valid refutation of the theory. It is simply a lack of evidence for the theory.

The projection was made that, as dinosaurs had hip-bone structures similar to both birds and lizards, it was a possibility that birds had evolved from bird-hipped dinosaurs. Fossil remains of archaeopteryx and others have strengthened this hypothesis, due to being evidence for a link between bird-hipped dinosaurs and later, more developed birds.

Almost last but not least... I wonder what the supporters of Creationism think about speciation, i.e. the process in which you put a little bird, OK two, in a remote island and you come back thousand generations after and find different traits (generated by adaptation and something called genetic drift), were those traits decided and GIVEN by an INTELLIGENT designer??? or when is the Intelligent designer working? Evolution works everyday.

Please provide some of the evidences and alternative interpretations that invalidate the theory of evolution, as well as the theory that they more reasonably validate.

Since so many of the Evolutionists on this site have been attempting to convince me that I have an incorrect understanding of Darwinism/Evolutionary theories perhaps one of you would enlighten me as to the current definition.

The "logical interpretation by two men" statement is something you may want to research. Darwin simply published an idea that has been around for a couple of thousand years. This debate and the lack of evidence for the theory is what has prevented it from being accepted dogma for all that time.

There is no reason therefore to invalidate a theory that has never been proven to begin with. That is the real "straw man" isn't it?

The Intelligent Designer gave the birds the ability to adapt to their environment but in a lot shorter time than the thousand generations you are stating as has been poven and depending of course on the degree of adaptation required.

this ability proves an ID much more than by random chance

So in other words you can't.