@Jase4224 "Also as for the incomplete skeleton, if you have studied thousands of skeletons from hundreds of species then it is ok to make educated assumptions on how the rest of a creature may look based on 10% of its skeleton because nature tends to repeat itself. Of course even any given creature may have features we are unaware of but we do understand that when we draw an entire creature from a small amount of physical evidence that we are comparing what we have previously seen to be true."
Number one we agree that there are very few complete skeletons to study in the fossil record...fact. Number two nature repeats itself on this we agree. But nature does not cross the Genera boundary. That is where a huge hole is in the single origin ancestry theory.
There are parts of skeletons that is all we can agree to. What they belonged to is in question due to the lack of complete skeletons. Even Paleontologist agree on this point. So it becomes a guess at best. I agree with you on that. Try that on you next space trip to the moon...a guess at best...you want to experience space travel or flight in our atmosphere based on a best guess? I would prefer science in that endeavor how about you? Let's just be honest and say we have less than 10% of the animal and it may or may not look this way.
So now educated assumptions are settled science? Is that what you are trying to get me to believe? Then you are trying to talk me into having faith in your understanding of how the animal looked or behaved based on less than 10% of the evidence. Seems more like religion than what you want to call science. Let's be honest evolution is religion and not science to the masses who believe in the astronomical possibility for organized chaos without any boundaries or natural laws to govern those boundaries. Tell me how many evidences are there for spontaneous generation? That is right absolutely none and it is a disproved theory. But if evolution of that type did exist there should be some evidence. Does gravity not work the same way in every observable part of our world, solar system, or observed universe? So that is more science than guessing with only 10% or less of the observable information. How about mathematics does the answer ever change to the simple rules applied to addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division? If it did we could not depend on our science at all...it would be based on a guess not a repeatable result.
You assume I do not believe in some form of evolution and that is not true. I believe we are seeing mutation all the time and that is evolution. However there are no proven mutations in recorded history that have become a new Genus. This is where the evolutionary tree is rotten to the core and falls on its own weight. New species is another animal all together. Look at all the designer Clownish that are available today that never existed in the wild. Look at the designer Guppies as another example. Ever witness a cross between a monkey and a fish? I know a Monk-fish right? They are quite tasty with lobster butter too.
You also assume that the bible and all organized religion teaches the earth is 6000-7000 years old. That is false period. The bible is silent on the time between creation and the fall of man. No time period is given. Also no time period is given between that and the establishment of cultures that are verified by historical record such as Babylon. There was an attempt to make the genealogy listed in Genesis into a estimated guess as to the approximate age of human activity on the Earth. Again what about the time before creation? Even the bible records something being here before the creation story. So even the record of the bible is silent as to the age of the Earth. Humans made one of those educated assumptions you mentioned above to arrive at that period of time. And like you they depend on faith to make it work. To be honest we do not know how old the Earth or humanity is on the planet. The elements that make up our earth and life forms could be quite old and since the bible is silent on that it is of very little import to the main message contained there. This does not diminish the possibility of God or creation in any way shape or form. We honestly just don't know period. There is a lot in science and religion that is a
mystery. We can agree on that.
The problem with creation is that people don't understand it either just like your claim about evolution. Again you miss the point of no trans-species fossils. In other words there are no fossils crossing Genera. From a fish to a monkey or related. There are fish today that have limbs like the African Lung Fish...so you point is? I have never seen one develop into a dog have you? There is the Platypus but are there any instances of it becoming a duck? Can it mate outside of its species...nope. See the problem I have with macro evolution or single source ancestry? It like spontaneous generation has never been observed or recorded in fossil or historical documents.
Biology, Geology, and Physics only point to man's understanding of the subject. Again not a proof against creation at all. Creation is a possible answer to all these disciplines and could be the result of intelligent design. In fact the laws of probabilities actually favors creation over the randomness needed for single origin evolution. You are advancing dogma not settled science. Because it depends on faith in human interpreters to have gotten the evolutionary tale just right and then goes looking for evidence to support its assumptions. Like the O.J. Simpson trial you want me to accept the fallacy of the assumed premise. There is no creator so only evolution can answer the question. That is just as much a faith based quest as you claim I am on. Science is a development of men to try and describe what they cannot control or completely understand. Kind of sounds like religion to me how about you? It is anything but concrete and settled. If you doubt that take a long hard look at the history of science. It was not to long ago in terms of time that the earth was flat and settled science. In my life time many theories of science have been disproved and replaced with actual results and observation. In my life time the Human Genome was mapped and what was not understood was called "junk DNA" now we call it Epigenetics. None of this disproves or proves creation or evolution as an incontrovertible truth period. It is just two schools of thought as to how we arrive at where we are today. I prefer to believe one that ennobles Humanity as children of the Creator versus a result of accidental slime. Which picture is more ennobling and uplifting? Which one actually portrays us as equals that deserve respect, civility, nurture, and hope of a future? Versus survival of the fittest...the most base, coarse, lie ever perpetrated on the human race. One leads to selfless living and the other to selfish living. I know which one is better in that outcome. I know which area of thought will ensure my children's and your children's survival and it is not survival of the fittest. Let's admit freely that we all choose to believe one way or the other and neither is settled. That is probably the only true agreement we can have on this subject. I will not convince you and you will not convince me. There it is settled.
Now what difference does it make? If I am wrong I have lived my life with a hope for a future and lived a life with respect to others. I have gained a good life. If you are wrong you missed out on the greatest adventure in the universe, living with and meeting someone who can answer all your questions and provided you all you needed to arrive there safe and happy. You will miss out on the actual realization of what love is and what love does. Which one of us has the most to lose? See there is an end to all our experience on earth and we agree no one avoids it. But what if there is something more?
