Evidence for God from Science

Jlay >> Again, begging the question. Take Mt. Saint Helens for example. We saw rapid deposition of a lot of material. We actually witnessed it. And guess what. It settled into layers. So, by your analysis the lower layers are older, right?

I guess if the only place you observed this phenomenon, was around Mt. St. Helen, you would possibly be correct but the situation is found repeatedly around the globe in areas where is is possible to establish that no activity has occurred for thousands and millions of years.

Even if there had been a great flood, the effects seen today would establish it as fairly recent compared to millions of years. But the real fossil record has no record of a "World wide" flooding of the earth, while some remote areas, such as the Middle east do indicate such a calamity took place after the last ice age.

jlay wrote: Take Mt. Saint Helens for example. We saw rapid deposition of a lot of material. We actually witnessed it. And guess what. It settled into layers. So, by your analysis the lower layers are older, right? But, we know in fact they aren't older. At least not older in the sense you mean. They were laid down at the same time from the same event. If one examines rock layers looking through the lens of succession, then will create problems. The law of superposition is the presumed way that science looks at layers. But it has flaws by what we are able to observe today. That isn't saying superposition isn't a way, or even the main way things happened in the past. But it isn't observable.

Succession is not a basic law of science. There are numerous exceptions and no reason there shouldn't be. Children gain weight as they grow older. This is generally but not always true. Measuring with a scale confirms or rejects this for an individual child. Likewise, older layers are usually lower. Sometimes not. The definitive answer is by dating. But the simple rule of succession is not always true. Observations such as Mt St. Helens are not flaws but complexities. Sorry, science isn't usually simple.

Hardly anything in science is observable or reproducible. Limiting science to direct eyewitness accounts would knock out 90% of science.

BavarianWheels wrote:Like the above.

+1, and welcome to the site Moonstroller. I agree with a lot of what you said, but do have a couple concerns, I'll address when I get a little more time

jlay wrote: There is simply no whale that has rear legs. There are whales that have appendages. Of course we know whales have flippers. So, why are the rear appendages presumed to be legs? Because one is imposing their evolutionary presuppositions onto the evidence.
Drawing something in a textbook may convince you, but it is NOT evidence. You can take existent creatures TODAY, put them in succession in a text book and make the same argument. The difference is that because of what we CAN observe we can dismiss the hypothesis. But, let's just suppose for a moment that by some chance those bones we find on some whale and dolphin species are remnants of legs. Guess what? That is atrophy, which is a loss of genetic information, and in no way accounts for the existance of legs in the first place. You can't get from single cells to Dolphins by losing limbs. It just don't happen.

Who says it's only losing limbs? Other attributes develop over time, others decline when they do not benefit (or even harm) the species.

jlay wrote:Again, begging the question. Take Mt. Saint Helens for example. We saw rapid deposition of a lot of material. We actually witnessed it. And guess what. It settled into layers. So, by your analysis the lower layers are older, right? But, we know in fact they aren't older. At least not older in the sense you mean. They were laid down at the same time from the same event. If one examines rock layers looking through the lens of succession, then will create problems. The law of superposition is the presumed way that science looks at layers. But it has flaws by what we are able to observe today. That isn't saying superposition isn't a way, or even the main way things happened in the past. But it isn't observable. And based on what we can observe today, we see multiples layers being laid down at the same time. We also have polystrate fossils that confirm that multiple layers have been laid down in the past.

You do realize we have methods to date these layers of rock right? I never said lower layers = older. Older layers = older. We don't have to rely on what we observe.

Reactionary wrote:Pierson, I've been a little busy these days so I'll respond when I find more time to dedicate to it. Don't think I'm ignoring you or something.

Not a problem, take your time. Finals are just about wrapping up, so I prefer you don't respond for a while

sandy_mcd wrote: Hardly anything in science is observable or reproducible. Limiting science to direct eyewitness accounts would knock out 90% of science.

Indeed. I find it odd that some of you have such high levels of "have to see it to believe it" when it comes to evolution, but accept accounts in the bible as absolute fact based on "eyewitness testimonials."

You do realize we have methods to date these layers of rock right? I never said lower layers = older. Older layers = older. We don't have to rely on what we observe.

Do you realize that ALL dating methods require assumptions that can't be proven?
I am well aware of the differences in forensic science versus observational science.
Plus, I am not debating whether they are old or young.. This isn't an issue of the age of the earth. I had a feeling you'd make that assumption. It's a strawman btw.

Who says it's only losing limbs? Other attributes develop over time, others decline when they do not benefit (or even harm) the species.

Fine, prove it. I already challenged you, and you've yet to provide any evidence. You've offered ad populum fallacies, manufactured evidence such as drawings, and assumptions.
We are supposed to believe that whales have FULLY functional front flippers, yet the appendages on the back are legs. Why isn't anyone calling the front flippers legs? Dive on in the deep end.

sandy_mcd wrote:Succession is not a basic law of science.

When I say that, I am saying that the "law of succession" is a basic principle. The phrase "law of succession" is common in geology tests I've found. I've yet to see anything you offered that actually disputes what I stated. Superposition and faunal succession are principles commonly applied, and as I said, in many if not most cases they are a likely indicator.

moonstroller wrote:I guess if the only place you observed this phenomenon, was around Mt. St. Helen, you would possibly be correct but the situation is found repeatedly around the globe in areas where is is possible to establish that no activity has occurred for thousands and millions of years.

Even if there had been a great flood, the effects seen today would establish it as fairly recent compared to millions of years. But the real fossil record has no record of a "World wide" flooding of the earth, while some remote areas, such as the Middle east do indicate such a calamity took place after the last ice age.

As you stated, we do have others examples repeated around the world. Volcanoes are global. So, what exactly is your point? I'm curious as to how you establish that no activity has occurred form millions of years, and if so, what of it? The point I am making to Pierson is regarding his statement about no human fossils being found at certain levels. You guys seem to have resulted to elephant hurling by bringing in arguments you presume I would hold to, but aren't actually being discussed. When in fact, I am making a specific point about something else entirely.
The REAL fossil record is a record of death. Were you there to observe how these things were buried and died? No. All we know is they died, and they died in a way that provided preservation, which indicates rapid deposition on one scale or another.
Further, my initial points have nothing to do with a global flood. That is not the argument I'm making. I brought up some specific questions, and yet I see you guys danced right around them, and then start attacking strawmen. Very scientific of you.

jlay wrote:

You do realize we have methods to date these layers of rock right? I never said lower layers = older. Older layers = older. We don't have to rely on what we observe.

Do you realize that ALL dating methods require assumptions that can't be proven?
I am well aware of the differences in forensic science versus observational science.
Plus, I am not debating whether they are old or young.. This isn't an issue of the age of the earth. I had a feeling you'd make that assumption. It's a strawman btw.

All dating methods require assumptions that can't be proven? Like the resurrection of Jesus? If you can say all dating methods require assumptions, would you agree that means young-earth creationists are perfectly rational claiming the earth is <10,000 years old? There are many, many, MANY different dating methods. Used in combination give a pretty (although not 100%) accurate account of the age of fossils, sediment layers, etc...

jlay wrote:

Who says it's only losing limbs? Other attributes develop over time, others decline when they do not benefit (or even harm) the species.

Fine, prove it. I already challenged you, and you've yet to provide any evidence. You've offered ad populum fallacies, manufactured evidence such as drawings, and assumptions.
We are supposed to believe that whales have FULLY functional front flippers, yet the appendages on the back are legs. Why isn't anyone calling the front flippers legs? Dive on in the deep end.

Really? After I gave you that long winded explanation with fossil evidence, I have yet to provide ANY evidence? Did you even read what I wrote? Again with the "drawings." They were based off of fossils from an article published in Nature. If you really want to see them, fine: http://bit.ly/JQ8lwd

I've been over the "ad populum" or "appeal to authority" thing. Again, please read what I wrote, or at least demonstrate you read it by telling me what it is exactly you disagree with.

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:This isn't an appeal to authority. The appeal to authority logical fallacy is when you argue that a conclusion is correct simply because a known authority said so. There is an important distinction to be made here. If you argue that evolution is a fact because most relevant scientists think so, that is a logical fallacy. However, if you argue that evolution is a fact and most relevant scientists agree with that conclusion based upon the evidence, this separation between scientific skepticism and appeal to authority is a little clearer.

The thing is, that evidence often doesn't speak for itself - in (evolutionary) biology it almost never does.

Reactionary wrote:Now seriously, you seem to be afraid to oppose anything claimed by the "scientific community". You idolize it like it's a god or something. Well let me tell you - it isn't. It's consisted of imperfect humans like you or me, and so it may make a mistake, or even be biased. As someone once said, scientists aren't always nice guys in labcoats seeking truth. Just as we're somewhat emotionally attached to our worldviews (yes, we are), so can be they. And humans may resort to denial when facts don't suit their wishes and their view of the world. There's nothing to be ashamed about that as it's a part of our nature, it's just that we need to be aware that it may happen, for our own good.

Pierson5 wrote:Fear has nothing to do with it. It has to do with trust. It's not idolization. You are correct. Humans are not infallible, mistakes are made, people are biased. In the scientific community, however, if a scientist is found out to be biased, it ruins their career. If mistakes are made, their paper gets corrected. The scientific community is a self correcting community. This is THE BEST method we currently have for deciphering truth. We do our best to minimize or eliminate these errors and biases. I have not seen anyone propose a better method. I have not seen a scientific answer, however inadequate, for which now a better answer is a religious one. I have no reason to distrust the scientific consensus. What are yours?

I'm curious, what would you call these vestigial appendages? Flippers? Because it looks like they are a bunch of leg bones packed inside a whale to me. Let's hear your hypothesis. Are you claiming ignorance and saying you don't know (nothing wrong with that) or do you have evidence for a different hypothesis? I'm sure it is backed up with more evidence than what I have shown you.

All I'm hearing are a lot of arguments from ignorance. "I don't know how this happened, can science explain this? Let's see the evidence!" Asking questions is fine (I have raised similar ones). But to go from that to "Therefore evolution is false" is ridiculous. As I've said before, science doesn't claim to have ALL the answers (we can go back to atomic theory and some others). However, the scientific community does have very sufficient evidence to show evolution occurred and have classified it as fact. I trust the scientific community's examination of the evidence. I'll propose this question again:

I am curious about something though. What are you guys proposing exactly? Evolution is false, therefore, what? We don't know how these organisms came about, or you have some other explanation? If it's the latter, do you have evidence for it (more than evolution I'm guessing)?

I only got a response from Rick. I'll look into his source after finals are over, but I have yet to hear an answer from you. I'm sure you have more evidence than the fossil record, geographical, DNA, etc... for evolutionary theory to justify an alternate hypothesis. You seem overly critical of the scientific consensus on this topic. Why? Is this an isolated case because it goes against your religious view? Or do you really examine other areas with such scrutiny? What about your bible?

Pierson5 wrote:Indeed. I find it odd that some of you have such high levels of "have to see it to believe it" when it comes to evolution, but accept accounts in the bible as absolute fact based on "eyewitness testimonials."

Really? After I gave you that long winded explanation with fossil evidence, I have yet to provide ANY evidence? Did you even read what I wrote? Again with the "drawings." They were based off of fossils from an article published in Nature. If you really want to see them, fine: http://bit.ly/JQ8lwd

The length of your explanation does not make it valid.
This link doesn't work, but Piers, this aint my first rodeo. I've seen the so called evidence. I've seen the discussions on rhodocetus and many other alleged species, but again...... Considering the myriad of species alive today, and in the past, anyone can take bones, fossils and assemble a tree. In fact, you can do so only with extant species. The problem is the tree has no branches. And that is quite a problem. Unless assumptions and faith work. And that, as you've already shown is a RELIGION.

jlay wrote:

Really? After I gave you that long winded explanation with fossil evidence, I have yet to provide ANY evidence? Did you even read what I wrote? Again with the "drawings." They were based off of fossils from an article published in Nature. If you really want to see them, fine: http://bit.ly/JQ8lwd

The length of your explanation does not make it valid.
This link doesn't work, but Piers, this aint my first rodeo. I've seen the so called evidence. I've seen the discussions on rhodocetus and many other alleged species, but again...... Considering the myriad of species alive today, and in the past, anyone can take bones, fossils and assemble a tree. In fact, you can do so only with extant species. The problem is the tree has no branches. And that is quite a problem. Unless assumptions and faith work. And that, as you've already shown is a RELIGION.

If the link doesn't work. Google it yourself. As I said before, pictures of the fossils are there. If you claim otherwise you are either being lazy and not looking, or lying.

The length does not make it valid. Correct, but the evidence that went along with it certainly helps. I'm curious as to what you mean by "the tree has no branches." I see a few?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... fe_SVG.svg

These same "assumptions and faith" are applied to every scientific theory. Like I said, science never claims to know everything with absolute certainty. There are always going to be these assumptions (based upon the evidence). Are you then claiming the scientific method as a whole is a religion? Either way, this has nothing to do with the discussion. You can say it's a religion if you want, but that has nothing to do with whether evolution is true or false, whether a deity exists or not.

jlay wrote: this aint my first rodeo. I've seen the so called evidence.

How about you give us your thoughts on science? Then we won't have to guess at what you are trying to say.

Does science prove anything?

If something is postulated to take millions of years, it is by definition unscientific since no one has seen it happen?

If we can't see atoms, is atomic theory invalidated? If not, why not?

If science demand reproducibility, what conditions are necessary to establish the same environment? If we perform the same experiment twice, what variables do we have to control for (time of day, temperature, geographical location)? Basically, is anything truly reproducible since the exact conditions can not be duplicated?


Can you give a few examples of issues which science can address and some which can not be examined scientifically?

Any progress on whether hypothetical kids should be taken, or allowed to go, to church?

Like I said, science never claims to know everything with absolute certainty. There are always going to be these assumptions (based upon the evidence).

hmmmm. I was under the impression that u and others saw darwinism as a indisputable fact. My bad. Im good with that.
Btw. Ive seen the fossils, the pictures, the renderings, etc. what I see are fully formed extinct species. The only facts being that they once lived and are now gone.

Just for kicks let's take a look at one of Pierson's links.

https://homes.bio.psu.edu/people/Facult ... ject2.html
This is a proposition. One based on assumptions that what? Evolution of the Darwinian kind DID happen. That is called begging the question. It starts with what it is trying to prove. That flightless insects developed flight over gradual changes. But are there actual fossils here?

Here is one statement.

In the case of insect flight, the challenge is to explain how a flight-capable creature, with its complex interrelated nerves, muscles, articulations, and wings, evolved from nonflying ancestors. We have discovered that certain stoneflies use their wings to skim across water surfaces (i.e. nonflying two-dimensional aerodynamic locomotion). These surface-skimming stoneflies do not need to generate total weight support, and they demonstrate a pathway for gradual evolution beginning with rudimentary stages of wings and muscles, all the way to fully weight-supported "true" flight.

OK, certain stoneflies use their wings to skim across the water. Great. Problem solved. Oh wait. How is that evidence for complex nerves, muscles and wings themselves arising from their absence? It isn't. Is it an explanation? Sure. But is the explanation evidence? No. It has to be taken on faith, and it HAS TO be taken with the presumption (faith) that it did happen. Is that really following the scientific method?

I actually participated in a discussion years ago on this forum regarding Tiktaalik.
Here is one thing I read:

While it may be that neither is ancestor to any living animal, they serve as evidence that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. The mixture of both "fish" and tetrapod characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits:...."

Perhaps they should check out the extant mud hopper.

Are there animals today that have 'traits' that appear to be a mixture? Duck billed platapus. Mud hopper. Animals that live comfortably on land and water. Crocodillians, which are presumed to be virtually uncahnged for millions of years. Hippos. Otters. Beavers.
Further, I'd like to see a whale with legs. Fossil or otherwise. If it is as you say, and that in the future you will find whales with less legs, then show us. You can't. You may find a dolphin with a strange appendage/s, but no leg, fossil or otherwise.

I'll give you another great example. Talk Origins says regarding Rhodocetus,

It is also likely that Rodhocetus had a tail fluke, although such a feature is not preserved in the known fossils:

Why would they say this. Because it fits their question begging presuppositions. The one who discovered Rhodocetus began to build a case that it had a fluke like a whale, and of course the drawings followed. The problem. NO freaking fluke. None. Yet, the so called evidence you look at as 'convincing' has been doctored, and yet you just take it hook line and sinker. Oh, and did we mention, no flippers as well.

I've noticed a lot of further stabs, but no one directly addressed anything I mentioned. Only attacks of strawmen.

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote:Now, if someone could explain to me what Intelligent Design has to do with the separation of church and state...

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site."To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions,"

That's not an answer. It's merely another appeal to authority. I want to know why ID is claimed to be religious. Unlike you, I'm satisfied only by arguments, not opinions.
http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option ... &Itemid=31
Check question 5 specifically.

Pierson5 wrote:3. The age of geological layers correlate with what we should expect from evolutionary theory (taking into account earthquakes and plate tectonics of course)

(...)
How is that circular reasoning?

If we begin at the present and examine older and older layers of rock, we will arrive at a level where no human fossils are found. If we continue backward in time, we successively come to layers where no fossils of birds are present, no mammals, no reptiles, no four-footed animals, no fishes, no shells, and no members of the animal kingdom. These concepts are summarized in the general principle called the Law of Fossil Succession.
- American Geological Institute

Cool. But again, what does that have to do with evolution? We notice that more "advanced" species tend to appear later in the fossil record, but we don't see how those species allegedly turned into each other.

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:4. Sure they can, we can make up any number of fictional beings to account for these. But we have no evidence of them, so they are dismissed.

We likewise have no evidence of anything coming to being from nothing.

What does that have to do with anything? Evolution says nothing about the origin of life.

Evolution also says nothing about the existence of God, you admitted that yourself. So why bring up "fictional beings"?

Pierson5 wrote:.... Cars don't reproduce. There is no natural selection going on. This requires no designer.

Natural selection doesn't create anything, so what's the difference?

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote:I know what you mean. A scientist, even if he was renowned, would be bashed if he published an article on, let's say, Intelligent Design, even if he soundly argumented his case. The issue is that a certain interpretation (evolution) is not allowed to be questioned, and anyone who does will be mocked and discredited. The modern day scientific circles aren't really famous for being open-minded, that was my point.

They are open minded if the evidence is there. You can soundly argument a case, but if it's not backed up with any evidence, there is no reason to believe it.

Sounds so idealistic. I wonder if you really believe that.

Pierson5 wrote:Wrong. I recognize ALL possibilities of other worldviews. What I don't ACCEPT is that they all have equal merit in a classroom. I don't accept that these worldviews are true because of insufficient evidence. I said before, if evidence for God presented itself, I would change my mind. I use to be a Christian and have changed my mind. Is that not considering other worldviews and theories of origins? I could just as easily change my mind and go back the other way. How does it deny free will and reason?

How? Well, I don't think it's that complicated, Pierson. Atheism teaches that the brain is material. All the material, physical objects are prone to laws of physics and chemistry. So we can't really talk about free will, if our thoughts are chemical reactions in the brain. That's because chemical reactions, and/or electrical discharges, don't think. They just react according to the physical laws. What would then make our brain any different? Consciousness, reason, free will, it's all an illusion under atheistic materialism, which makes it a self-refuting worldview as it denies you the very instruments that you use to reach your conclusions.
http://www.bethinking.org/science-chris ... ralism.htm

Pierson5 wrote:

Reactionary wrote: Regarding your point... You display a lack of understanding of probably the most significant book in the history of mankind, and my advice is that you don't brag about it on a Christian forum because you embarrass yourself by doing that. If you don't understand something, again, ask. For instance, since you mentioned the fig tree, it's a parable with a profound meaning. It's not that difficult to find an explanation on the Internet:
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-fig-tree.html

Was it a significant book in the history of mankind? Sure. So is the Qur'an, so are the Upanishads. Just because they are significant doesn't make the stories in them true or immune to criticism.

Of course it doesn't. But the thing is, most "criticism" directed at the Bible these days boils down to intentional ignorance, straw men, cherrypicking verses, hypocrisy (criticising God's morality, yet adhering to a worldview that denies morality) etc. "Critics" could and should do better really. I rarely see constructive criticism, unfortunately.

Pierson5 wrote:It's obviously extremely important that we understand God's word. God knew we were going to speak English. Why is it so difficult? This is the inspired word of God, yet it was written by ~40 different authors, over a period of ~1600 years, across 3 different languages, by thousands of different scribes, in a language that we don't speak, yet is extremely important that we understand it. It seems like, if there is a God out there, he is making it increasingly difficult (nearly impossible) for us to really know what he means. Translation after translation. Once we even get into English, we have multiple versions of the translation. King James, American Standard, etc... With different types of variations. What is God's word versus the translation mistake of some guy 900 years ago? We have several apologetics with several different interpretations...

Why English? I usually read the Bible in Croatian, my first language. And when I compare it to English versions, it's not that different - however, I like to read different versions to get the better picture as I don't know Ancient Greek or Hebrew. Centuries ago, Latin language had the similar status English has nowadays: most of the people spoke it, so are you implying that God should throw an updated version of the Bible from the sky whenever dominant languages in the society change? Please. Why don't you look at things from another point of view? God gave the humans mental abilities to build computers and establish the Internet. So we can quickly and efficiently exchange information. Finally, "translation mistake of some guy 900 years ago" isn't a threat because all the translations are done after the original manuscripts, written long before that.

Pierson5 wrote:You say to really reach in and study the Bible. Why not study the book of Islam, why not the Upanishads and discover the truths behind those? Is it because we live in the United States? The same interpretation variations and apologetics exist within all these religions.

I don't live in the United States. What made you think that? I put my location on my profile, it's visible on the right side of my every post.

By the way, I agree, why not study other religions? Let's examine them thoroughly and see which has the most credibility. If you want to discuss them, post a thread about it.

Pierson5 wrote:Woh, I never said anything about intellectual legitimacy. If Sandy brought up a disagreement with something I said, we would engage in conversation. We both trust the scientific community, that's something we have in common. I was expecting this community to have a similar mindset (based off of the title of the site), that's all. It's perfectly fine that you don't (as long as you aren't pushing the "distrust" to be taught to my future children )

Wow, please tell me about how you're concerned about children's minds. I don't know, however, how old they have to be for you to recognize them as humans. Last time I heard, you considered them violators of their mothers' bodily autonomy.

Pierson5 wrote:Fear has nothing to do with it. It has to do with trust. It's not idolization. You are correct. Humans are not infallible, mistakes are made, people are biased. In the scientific community, however, if a scientist is found out to be biased, it ruins their career. If mistakes are made, their paper gets corrected. The scientific community is a self correcting community. This is THE BEST method we currently have for deciphering truth. We do our best to minimize or eliminate these errors and biases. I have not seen anyone propose a better method. I have not seen a scientific answer, however inadequate, for which now a better answer is a religious one.

Nobody mentioned religion in the paragraph. Once again you're attacking straw men. ID is not religion. You failed to prove otherwise, instead you provided me with a quote. Maybe next time?

Pierson5 wrote:I have no reason to distrust the scientific consensus. What are yours?

My tendency to see all humans as imperfect and emotional, therefore biased. Again, I don't idolize anyone, and the fact that someone wears a lab coat and has a PhD doesn't mean that I'll accept anything the person says. Even if a community consisted of such persons agree with him/her. I hope I'll earn a PhD one day (and I'm working hard - so far successfully - to progress intellectually) but I have no illusions - I don't hope that a degree will make me more objective or more important than I currently am. And I'm afraid that you haven't realized that yet, unfortunately. When I don't see the evidence, I'll doubt. I'll ask questions and if I don't get adequate answers, I'll look for an alternative explanation. I haven't got adequate answers from the evolutionist camp. When I was 12, I read through my biology textbook and wondered, "Why are there so many maybe-s, might-s, likely-s, probably-s...?" And it's not much different today, I'm afraid.

Pierson5 wrote:However, the scientific community does have very sufficient evidence to show evolution occurred and have classified it as fact. I trust the scientific community's examination of the evidence.

In other words, you've been studying biology for... five years (if I remember it right), and you don't have any conclusive evidence that you can demonstrate to us, which should convince us that evolution is a fact? You trust the examination... so you're not even convinced yourself?? And you wonder why we mistrust??

Oh my, this is worse than I thought... At least thanks for being honest, if nothing else.

jlay wrote:

Like I said, science never claims to know everything with absolute certainty. There are always going to be these assumptions (based upon the evidence).

hmmmm. I was under the impression that u and others saw darwinism as a indisputable fact. My bad. Im good with that.
Btw. Ive seen the fossils, the pictures, the renderings, etc. what I see are fully formed extinct species. The only facts being that they once lived and are now gone.

We have to be careful using "science" and "fact". Science doesn't claim to prove anything as absolutely true, but scientists have various degrees of confidence in conclusions. For practical purposes, you should consider evolution as near to indisputable as anything gets in science.

People look at rocks (which are the facts in this case) and come to conclusions.

Almost everyone concludes that certain rocks are the fossilized remains of once living entities. That is a conclusion and not a fact.
A subset of the people believing that fossils were once living also notice a systematic change in fossils over time. From this (and other observations) they conclude evolution occurred. Thus conclusion of evolution is not a fact, just as that fossils were once living is not a fact. To date, no one has proposed a better, detailed explanation.

jlay wrote:One based on assumptions that what? Evolution of the Darwinian kind DID happen. That is called begging the question. It starts with what it is trying to prove. That flightless insects developed flight over gradual changes. But are there actual fossils here?

jlay is correct in stating that evolution is assumed. That is the state of biology today. Almost all biologists accept evolution. It is not considered necessary to demonstrate evolution before writing about it, just as chemists do not start papers with arguments for atomic theory, which is assumed to be accepted by others in the field.
For a long time cigarettes were believed to cause cancer. This conclusion was accepted long before a mechanism for how cigarettes cause cancer was elucidated. Discussing the development of flight is not really different.

Reactionary wrote: When I was 12, I read through my biology textbook and wondered, "Why are there so many maybe-s, might-s, likely-s, probably-s...?" And it's not much different today, I'm afraid.
... you don't have any conclusive evidence that you can demonstrate to us, which should convince us that evolution is a fact? You trust the examination... so you're not even convinced yourself?? And you wonder why we mistrust??

What would you consider conclusive evidence?
More importantly, why are you surprised that not every incident which has occurred since the beginning of the earth has not been preserved for you to examine?