Whale Evolution: A Fluke Or A Tale?

[Roy]

Today @ 06:08 AM post located here
weat:

What does, "never talk about" infer? That no evolutionist anywhere at anytime ever dare talks about these problems? Or should it be obvious that I am referring to something else and that is the public presentation of evolution.

The websites/journals/encyclopaedias where the topic is covered are available to the public.

rthearle, "(i) I am quite happy to admit it when I'm wrong - but in this case I'm not. The current estimates for the age of Jericho vary,* but they are all much greater than 4,000 years. Thus w[e]at's statement is false. He has in fact retracted this claim."

Retracted, no, although I had no problem accepting an older age as a few thousand years did not help your cause.

Then retract it before it becomes one of your lies rather than just someone else's.

Even under Ussher's chronology Babylon and Thebes are considered > 4,000 years old.

Roy

P.S. Yeah, I know I said I was finished with weat. But he's like an old scab that I just want to scratch.

[aniso]

Today @ 06:08 AM post located here
weat:

I wrote, "No. 3 - I wrote, "The strata is believed by evolutionists to have been deposited over billions of years. That statement is correct as to what evolutionists believe. As far as the measurments, all measurments are based on assumptions which may be wrong and often the determined dates are rejected if they do not fit the evolution scenario. But a number of measurments results in the earth being too young for evolution to have had a chance to happen. Those measurments are ignored by evolutionists.”

rthearle, "This is a flat out lie. Every one of these measurements has been addressed. Further, none of them that I am aware of involve dating rock strata."

I wrote, "Where is the proof that I have lied? Be careful, rt. When you said "every one of these measurements" you would do well to define exactly what you mean. All the more reason to call me a liar on this point is to speak to your lack of integrity.”

rthearle, "(i) Weat has claimed that measurements that supposedly show a young earth are 'ignored by evolutionists'. This is false - every such 'measurement' that I have ever seen has been addressed, if not refuted. None have been ignored."

Ignored, as in disregarding whether or not there is a provable solution.

What? A 'provable solution?' This is nonsense, once again. The idea was to 'prove' that your solution(s) are illogical and undependable. This has been done repeatedly. One of the most recent examples is the RATE drivel about radiocarbon dating. Refutations abound on this board, but not a single word in their defense by YECs. And yet, you say that WE have ignored issues! LOLLLLL!

Again, to suppose I meant that materlialists hear a difficulty and make no attempt whatsoever to resolve is just not a reasonable one.

It is completely unreasonable. These issues are addressed on numerous websites and articles, as well as on these pages. They are not ignored. On the other hand, you have ignored the rebuttals entirely. This is not only closed-minded, but disrespectful, as well. You are wasting our time, but we continue to attempt in helping you understand.

You seem to excel in focusing on a version of a statement which provides you an opportunity to use your "lie" accusation. It again is not reasonable to assume that I meant to ignore without consideration whatsoever of the difficulty. The end result is that the problem is as though it is ignored.

Then address the rebuttals. I dont' see how you could ignore them since they are placed right in front of you.

Your response, "every one of these measurements" itself is unclear.

Actually, it is not. Every one has been addressed by evolutionists. YOu have simply decided not to read or listen.

What exactly are "every one of these measurements?"

Admitted. You have given us nothing concrete so it may be unclear what is meant by 'every one'. Nevertheless, allow me to clarify: 'Every one' means all of them as far as we know, unless you have something new to bring up.

This is all getting tedious, weat. You make accusations that you yourself are guilty of. It is no wonder that some have lost patience with your.

[aniso]

Today @ 05:01 AM post located here
weat:

When was this evidence compiled? Fish have been discovered in the Cambrian period only recently and this brings into question whether your supposed ancestors of fish predated the first fish.

However, those Cambrian fish DEFINITELY predated the true fishes of the mid-Paleozoic. There were also possible candidates for ancestors to the Cambrian fish provided to you.

Remember, these now earliest discovered fish had eyes apparently. Now what evidence do you have for the evolution of these "first fish?" And what does more or less fishlike look like? If you presuppose evolution, you should of course expect to find something which is somewhat similar to almost any creature and could be an ancestor. The problem is where is the proof?

Still requiring absoluet proof from everyone but professional YECs... That's interesting. By the way, if you want proof, science seldom gives it to you. It only provides facts and explanations. Something that YECism never does.

The Cambrian and pre-Cambrian strata document an explosion of a great deal of complex life forms appearing during a relatively short period of evolutionary time.

Well, if you consider tens of millions of years a short time, sure.

Many phyla appear with scant evidence of ancestors and too, there are not intermediates apparent which could connect these distinct phyla.

Actually, you have been given some.

In light of that and the recent discovery of even creatures with backbones-fish-in the Cambrian strata, how can you claim that it is not true that there is no indication that fish evolved from a simpler life form?

Because we have the fossil record that indicates this is how life changed through time. We also know that there are possible candidates for precursors.

How can you prove that these life forms did not live at the same time?

Well, we have to go with the data that we see. If you have contrary information that mammals, for instance, lived in the Cambrian you are remiss in not publishing it.

We are constantly finding creatures in strata in which they had not previously been found. That is increasingly challenging the evolution model.

Constantly? You mean everyday?

This argument has been likewise specifically refuted as a 'problem for evolution'. No fossils have been found outside their previously known range in such a way as to challenge evolution. That is, unless, once again, you have been witholding information.

The Barbarian, "The second is the assertion that "evolutionists" never talk about the things that mark the transition between reptiles and mammals. One has only to open any book on evolution to see that's a lie. From Darwin on, it's a key part of evolutionary theory."

I never hear these problems mentioned.

And whose fault is that? You have been given such information repeatedly here and it is widely available in the media. You shouldn't go off making wild, unsupported statements. This should be a lesson to you.

My error was in not noting that I am referring primarily to public presentations of evolution. When evoluton is presented to the public, difficulties such as would be involved in a reptile turning into a mammal are seldom, if ever, discussed. It would be silly to suppose that no evolutionist anywhere at any time ever dared speak of these difficult challenges for evolution, but they are not likely spoken of when PBS or National Geographic present one of their pro-evolution pieces.

I take it then, like Socrates, that you accept PBS and Discover Magazine, etc. as the final authorities on evolutionary science. Actually, it doesn't matter where the treatments are, you are incorrect in making such a casual statement. To do so, you should commit some more time to carefully studying the issues. Otherwise you look kind of silly.

[Roy]

Yesterday @ 07:51 PM post located here
aniso:

It would be silly to suppose that no evolutionist anywhere at any time ever dared speak of these difficult challenges for evolution, but they are not likely spoken of when PBS or National Geographic present one of their pro-evolution pieces.

I take it then, like Socrates, that you accept PBS and Discover Magazine, etc. as the final authorities on evolutionary science.

But why did weat say 'likely'?

Roy

[weat]

I wrote, "No. 5 - I wrote, "I claimed and still do claim that science has never been able to produce life in the laboratory.”

rthearle, "You lie again."

I wrote, "Where is the proof that I lied?”

rthearle, "(i) False? Yes. Let's reconstruct the entire conversation:

weat: Science has proven that life cannot occur naturally. Really, rt, you need to deal with reality. The best science has been able to assist to occur "naturally" in the laboratory are some building blocks of life, nothing more. If you have the mistaken notion that anything resembling actual life has happened, then you might want to provide the documentation. When exactly did science create life in the laboratory?

rthearle: And weat follows up his lie that "science has proven that life cannot occur naturally" not by attempting to justify his claim, but by complaining that I haven't produced a counterexample. I've rarely seen a more blatant example of burden-shifting."

weat: Proving a negative can be rather difficult."

rthearle: Yet you claimed one had been proven. Apparently it was just another lie."

weat: I claimed and still do claim that science has never been able to produce life in the laboratory."

rthearle, "Weat actually claimed something different."

Is that allowed? I still claim both, by the way.

rthearle, " I've highlighted the two claims to make the change apparent."

No change. An addition.

rthearle, "ii) Did weat know? This is akin to asking whether weat knows what he writes. If weat will admit he not only can't remember what he's said even when I've reminded him of it more than a dozen times, but also is incapable of scrolling back to previous messages to check, then I'll retract my accusation."

Wrong in every way. I believe both statements are true. You don't agree. So?

rthearle, "(iii) As for intention, weat's actions have clearly indicated that this shift of emphasis was deliberate. His attempt to shift the burden of proof,..."

I purposely gave you an opportunity to provide a refutation of my claim that science has not produced life in the laboratory to emphasize the fact that science has never been able to help life just happen. Thank you.

rthearle, "...his pretence that he had not claimed he had proven a negative, his subsequent rmultiple attempts to rephrase his comment to avoid making it seem he had made a positive claim and, most damning of all, that he actually deleted my quote of his original claim from my accusation*** before complaining about it all show that he knows he changed his claim. He is intentionally hiding that fact."
rthearle, "***The original words were 'You lie again. Your exact claim was that "Science has proven that life cannot occur naturally." You even quoted it below.' Weat ony quoted 'You lie again', leaving out the justification for the charge."

I have never deleted any part of your quotes when quoting you. Following is an excerpt from my post #194 in which I included the entire quote which you erroneously claim that I did not;

rthearle, "You lie again. Your exact claim was that "Science has proven that life cannot occur naturally." You even quoted it below. That is not the same thing."
and my response,
I wrote, "Both are true. Science has never produced life in the laboratory and scientific tests have proven repeatedly that life doesn't just happen. Science has also proven how incredibly difficult it is for life to happen.”

The quotes above prove that you were wrong as I left nothing out of your quote. How does it feel being proven wrong by a creationist? Goodness, the fabric of the universe may unravel!
A little paranoid are we, now, rt? There is nothing that I am trying to hide. Let me restate my positions:
1. Science has never been able to produce life in the laboratory.
2. All tests carried out in order to attempt to "help" life just happen in the laboratory have failed; indicating and proving as much as it can be proven, that life doesn't just happen. Mathematical models, for example, on the possibility of some necessary life producing events even happening, have been determined by some scholars to be too unlikely to be possible. Again, I believe that science has proven that life doesn't just happen.

I wrote, "You are an evolutionist. As such, any an all quotes provided by creationists will be claimed by you to be misquotes."

rthearle, "That's a lie. For a start, I didn't claim that your use of Thewissen was a misquote until you started leaving words out of it."

I wrote, "Again, you misuse the term "lie." I shouldn't have said that all quotes provided by creationists will be claimed to be misquotes by evolutionists such as yourself but it does seem that way sometimes."

rthearle, "(i) False? Definitely."

Agreed. But I allowed myself to be defensive and made the error of trying to retract the statement. The statement is obviously an exaggeration. You see, rt, in english sometimes people exaggerate in order to make a point. Now does anyone actually believe that you or any evolutionist will claim each and every quote a creationist uses will be labeled a misquote? Of course not. I was exaggerating and you were unable to recognize the difference between an exaggeration and a statement which SHOULD be interpreted literally.

rthearle, "(ii) Did weat know it was false? Again, yes. He admits it.
(iii) How about intent? It can't be nything other than deliberate. Weat admits he knows not all quotes by creationists are claimed to be misquotes, but he said it anyway."

No, rt, just my using a common english tactic.

rthearle, "So, to sum up,
- all 7 statements have been shown to be false;"

That is false, rt.

rthearle, " for most of them, weat must have known they were false, and for the rest he was making claims of nonexistence based on ignorance"

That has been proven false too, rt.

rthearle, "- only one of the cases appears to involve no original or subsequent intent of deception on weat's part, and in that case the accusation was directed at his source, not at him personally.
It is conceivable that weat doesn't actually know what he is writing. But, failing that, I consider that the above provides sufficient evidence for the accusations made. I hope the moderators will, upon seeing the above, agree no retraction is necessary."

I think it is most obvious that you have a problem with creationists who make sound arguments against your positions and you are quick to label them liars or such in order to make yourself feel better.

rthearle, "Anyway, I have now finished with weat."

And now back to a question I asked you and you mistakenly failed to answer. You seem to be quite the moral judge with your accusations of lies you have falsely applied to me. Where does your moral code originate? If you believe in the natural evolutionary survival of the fittest, doesn't anything go that benefits a life form?

[weat]

weat:
When was this evidence compiled? Fish have been discovered in the Cambrian period only recently and this brings into question whether your supposed ancestors of fish predated the first fish.”

aniso, "However, those Cambrian fish DEFINITELY predated the true fishes of the mid-Paleozoic. There were also possible candidates for ancestors to the Cambrian fish provided to you."

So you admit that your claimed fish evolution has no basis in fact any longer now that fish appear in the same Cambrian strata as their supposed ancestors? And those Cambrian fish are true fish.

I wrote, "Remember, these now earliest discovered fish had eyes apparently. Now what evidence do you have for the evolution of these "first fish?" And what does more or less fishlike look like? If you presuppose evolution, you should of course expect to find something which is somewhat similar to almost any creature and could be an ancestor. The problem is where is the proof?”

rthearle, "Still requiring absoluet proof from everyone but professional YECs... That's interesting. By the way, if you want proof, science seldom gives it to you. It only provides facts and explanations. Something that YECism never does."

No, I am just not willing to "give" you eyes or anything else for that matter. Make your own body parts. Or, should I say, let's see your evolution make anything at all. As far as facts are concerned, evolution has an utter lack of facts.

I wrote, "The Cambrian and pre-Cambrian strata document an explosion of a great deal of complex life forms appearing during a relatively short period of evolutionary time.”

aniso, "Well, if you consider tens of millions of years a short time, sure."

Tens of millions? I have read of a much shorter time; as little as five to ten million years. It seems to be getting shorter and shorter.

I wrote, "Many phyla appear with scant evidence of ancestors and too, there are not intermediates apparent which could connect these distinct phyla.”

aniso, "Actually, you have been given some."

There is scant evidence that the first dozens of complex life form types evolved from anything. They just abruptly appear in the fossil record. And now fish, critters with backbones, have been found there too.

I wrote, "In light of that and the recent discovery of even creatures with backbones-fish-in the Cambrian strata, how can you claim that it is not true that there is no indication that fish evolved from a simpler life form?”

aniso, "Because we have the fossil record that indicates this is how life changed through time. We also know that there are possible candidates for precursors."

The fossil record reveals a great deal of stasis after the first body types, including millions and billions of representatives, appear with little evidence of having evolved.

I wrote, "How can you prove that these life forms did not live at the same time? ”

aniso, "Well, we have to go with the data that we see. If you have contrary information that mammals, for instance, lived in the Cambrian you are remiss in not publishing it."

The latest data indicates that the supposed ancestors of fish lived at the same time as fish did. That is a problem for evolution. How do you evolve into somthing if it is already there?

I wrote, "We are constantly finding creatures in strata in which they had not previously been found. That is increasingly challenging the evolution model.”

aniso, "Constantly? You mean everyday?"

Quite often.

aniso, "This argument has been likewise specifically refuted as a 'problem for evolution'. No fossils have been found outside their previously known range in such a way as to challenge evolution. That is, unless, once again, you have been witholding information."

Fish were not believed to live in the Cambrian strata and have been found there. But in truth, nothing will be believed by evolutionists to be a problem for evolution.

The Barbarian, "The second is the assertion that "evolutionists" never talk about the things that mark the transition between reptiles and mammals. One has only to open any book on evolution to see that's a lie. From Darwin on, it's a key part of evolutionary theory."

I wrote, "I never hear these problems mentioned.”

aniso, "And whose fault is that? You have been given such information repeatedly here and it is widely available in the media. You shouldn't go off making wild, unsupported statements. This should be a lesson to you."

Well, excuuuuussssee me. My point is that the public presentations of evolution never mention the difficult challenges which evolution must overcome in order to be a viable theory.

I wrote, "My error was in not noting that I am referring primarily to public presentations of evolution. When evoluton is presented to the public, difficulties such as would be involved in a reptile turning into a mammal are seldom, if ever, discussed. It would be silly to suppose that no evolutionist anywhere at any time ever dared speak of these difficult challenges for evolution, but they are not likely spoken of when PBS or National Geographic present one of their pro-evolution pieces.”

aniso, "I take it then, like Socrates, that you accept PBS and Discover Magazine, etc. as the final authorities on evolutionary science. Actually, it doesn't matter where the treatments are, you are incorrect in making such a casual statement. To do so, you should commit some more time to carefully studying the issues. Otherwise you look kind of silly."

I think evolution looks silly when it is critiqued.

[The Barbarian]

Fish were not believed to live in the Cambrian strata and have been found there. But in truth, nothing will be believed by evolutionists to be a problem for evolution.

Fishlike animals turn out to be a little older than previously thought. It doesn't take a genius to realize why that isn't a problem for science. Now a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian rock, that would be a problem. But for some reason, we never see one of those. Not even a modern fish. It's not hard to realize why.

Barbarian observes:
The second is the assertion that "evolutionists" never talk about the things that mark the transition between reptiles and mammals. One has only to open any book on evolution to see that's a lie. From Darwin on, it's a key part of evolutionary theory.

weat writes:

I never hear these problems mentioned.

Of course not. If you never read the literature, you won't read a lot of things. Ignorance is the enemy.

Well, excuuuuussssee me. My point is that the public presentations of evolution never mention the difficult challenges which evolution must overcome in order to be a viable theory.

Actually, they do. If you read any of the popular books on the subject, they discuss the problems in detail. For example, Gould has done this. You can find a detailed discussion of the questions about fish with legs in "At the Water's Edge".

[Roy]

Today @ 03:57 AM post located here
weat:

No change. An addition.

Actually a subtraction - the claim that life has been proved unnatural has gone. Though it's interesting that you apparently think adding something to a statement doesn't change it.

Wrong in every way. I believe both statements are true. You don't agree. So?

So you pretended you'd made the second claim when you'd actually made the first one. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant. Oh, and now you're implying they're different, when above you said there was no change.

I purposely gave you an opportunity to provide a refutation of my claim that science has not produced life in the laboratory to emphasize the fact that science has never been able to help life just happen.

Except that your claim was something else - 'Science has proven that life cannot occur naturally.'

I have never deleted any part of your quotes when quoting you. Following is an excerpt from my post #194 in which I included the entire quote which you erroneously claim that I did not;

In your post #198 - which was the one I was replying to - you deleted everything except the first three words, thus omitting the justification I provided for the accusation.

The quotes above prove that you were wrong as I left nothing out of your quote. How does it feel being proven wrong by a creationist? Goodness, the fabric of the universe may unravel!

I was right, as anyone can see by examining your post #198.

...I believe that science has proven that life doesn't just happen.

Which is somewhat different from saying that it cannot happen. Nor should you state your subjective beliefs as objective facts.

I was exaggerating and you were unable to recognize the difference between an exaggeration and a statement which SHOULD be interpreted literally.

Of course I recognised the exaggeration. That doesn't mean it wasn't a lie. And that still leaves the slanderous accusation that I claim quotes by creationists are misquotes when they are not.

I think it is most obvious that you have a problem with creationists who make sound arguments against your positions and you are quick to label them liars or such in order to make yourself feel better.

Think what you like. I no longer care.

Roy

[HRG_new]

09-15-2003 @ 05:13 AM post located here
weat:


HRG_new, "No.Evolution and the Oort cloud are inferred to exist - in the same sense as Sirius and Pluto are inferred to exist."

We have photos of Pluto but not any of the Oort cloud that I am aware of.

You mean we have observed photons in some pattern, from which we infer that they have come from a source. We have called this source Pluto.

Similarly we have observed comets in some pattern, from which we infer that they have come from a source. We have called this source the Oort cloud.

The difference is quantitative, not qualitative.

HRG_new, "They are observed indirectly, as everything is observed indirectly to some degree. When you read this post, you infer from some nerve impulses which reach your brain that there is a computer screen in front of you. Actually, you could say that the computer screen "solves the problem" of explaining said nerve impulses - just as the Oort cloud "solves the problem" of long-period comets.""

There is no proof that the Oort cloud exists.

In the same sense as there is no proof that Pluto exists. Proof, as the saying goes, is for mathematics and alcohol. The photons we believe to be coming from Pluto may have been created in mid-space by a powerful, but invisible djinn. The long-range comets may have been created in mid-space by Ctulhu etc.

It is postulated to solve a problem and, as you say, its existence is at best inferred from limited data.

Just as the existence of Pluto is inferred from a bit less limited data. It is postulated to solve the problem of some photons coming from particular directions in the sky.

That may be sufficient for people who hold to certain beliefs, but it may not be enough for others. There is no absolute proof and that is certain.

See above. There is no absolute proof outside mathematics anyway. The difference is in degree. BTW, there are some people for which the evidence for a heliocentric solar system is not sufficient.

Regards,
HRG.

"Macro-evolution: that which has been demonstrated only beyond a reasonable doubt.
Micro-evolution: that which has been demonstrated even beyond creationist doubts" (S. Johannsen)

[aniso]

Today @ 04:22 AM post located here
weat:

weat:
When was this evidence compiled? Fish have been discovered in the Cambrian period only recently and this brings into question whether your supposed ancestors of fish predated the first fish.”

aniso, "However, those Cambrian fish DEFINITELY predated the true fishes of the mid-Paleozoic. There were also possible candidates for ancestors to the Cambrian fish provided to you."

So you admit that your claimed fish evolution has no basis in fact any longer now that fish appear in the same Cambrian strata as their supposed ancestors?

Where do you get that? They are effectively 'pre-fish'. They are fish that are more primitive and not quite fish except in how they are classified. They are classic precursors to true fish. You wanted an ancestor, so there is an example. Fish did not just pop into existence.

And those Cambrian fish are true fish.

They are not fish in the sense of modern fish or even Devonian fish. They are more primitive and have been proposed as possible precursors to later fish.

I wrote, "Remember, these now earliest discovered fish had eyes apparently.

Please document and compare with the eyes of true fish from the mid-Paleozoic. Then explain to us how those eyes evolved.

Now what evidence do you have for the evolution of these "first fish?" And what does more or less fishlike look like?

You have been repeatedly give possible precursors to the Cambrian fish. I see no reason to repeat them here.

If you presuppose evolution, you should of course expect to find something which is somewhat similar to almost any creature and could be an ancestor. The problem is where is the proof?”

Once again, expose your ignorance of science. Proof is not a necessary step in science, only an explanation supported by facts.

rthearle, "Still requiring absoluet proof from everyone but professional YECs... That's interesting. By the way, if you want proof, science seldom gives it to you. It only provides facts and explanations. Something that YECism never does."

No, I am just not willing to "give" you eyes or anything else for that matter. Make your own body parts. Or, should I say, let's see your evolution make anything at all. As far as facts are concerned, evolution has an utter lack of facts.

So you say. However, denial of facts does not convert them to anything else.

I wrote, "The Cambrian and pre-Cambrian strata document an explosion of a great deal of complex life forms appearing during a relatively short period of evolutionary time.”

aniso, "Well, if you consider tens of millions of years a short time, sure."

Tens of millions? I have read of a much shorter time; as little as five to ten million years. It seems to be getting shorter and shorter.

Actually there are tens of millions of years between Ediacaran fauna and the Cambrian 'explosion', plenty of time for significant evolution. This is the latest synthesis, regardless of what your professional creationists tell you.

I wrote, "Many phyla appear with scant evidence of ancestors and too, there are not intermediates apparent which could connect these distinct phyla.”

aniso, "Actually, you have been given some."

There is scant evidence that the first dozens of complex life form types evolved from anything. They just abruptly appear in the fossil record. And now fish, critters with backbones, have been found there too.

And there were other, more primitive life forms tens of millions of years earlier. Please explain this fact.

I wrote, "In light of that and the recent discovery of even creatures with backbones-fish-in the Cambrian strata, how can you claim that it is not true that there is no indication that fish evolved from a simpler life form?”

aniso, "Because we have the fossil record that indicates this is how life changed through time. We also know that there are possible candidates for precursors."

The fossil record reveals a great deal of stasis after the first body types, including millions and billions of representatives, appear with little evidence of having evolved.

Non-sequitur, again. I think maybe you are repeating yourself in a knee-jerk manner.

I wrote, "How can you prove that these life forms did not live at the same time? ”

aniso, "Well, we have to go with the data that we see. If you have contrary information that mammals, for instance, lived in the Cambrian you are remiss in not publishing it."

The latest data indicates that the supposed ancestors of fish lived at the same time as fish did. That is a problem for evolution. How do you evolve into somthing if it is already there?

They might have lived about the same time, but the precursors show up earlier in the record. You seem to be unremittingly confused on this point.

I wrote, "We are constantly finding creatures in strata in which they had not previously been found. That is increasingly challenging the evolution model.”

aniso, "Constantly? You mean everyday?"

Quite often.

Please define 'quite often'. You evade. You said 'always', what do you have to support that statement?

aniso, "This argument has been likewise specifically refuted as a 'problem for evolution'. No fossils have been found outside their previously known range in such a way as to challenge evolution. That is, unless, once again, you have been witholding information."

Fish were not believed to live in the Cambrian strata and have been found there. But in truth, nothing will be believed by evolutionists to be a problem for evolution.

Yes, they are more primitive than any previously known fish. They are precursors to the mid-Paleozoic fishes. Just what one would expect. I don't get your argument. You say that there are no precursors and yet when an obvious one shows up, you say, "Aha! But it has no precursors!"

The Barbarian, "The second is the assertion that "evolutionists" never talk about the things that mark the transition between reptiles and mammals. One has only to open any book on evolution to see that's a lie. From Darwin on, it's a key part of evolutionary theory."

I wrote, "I never hear these problems mentioned.”

aniso, "And whose fault is that? You have been given such information repeatedly here and it is widely available in the media. You shouldn't go off making wild, unsupported statements. This should be a lesson to you."

Well, excuuuuussssee me. My point is that the public presentations of evolution never mention the difficult challenges which evolution must overcome in order to be a viable theory.

Very well, consider yourself excused. Just let it be a lesson. Just remember that public presentations on commercial fusion power never mention the various difficulties of producing it. No budgets or anything! Does that mean that it is impossible or that someone is hiding something from you?

I wrote, "My error was in not noting that I am referring primarily to public presentations of evolution. When evoluton is presented to the public, difficulties such as would be involved in a reptile turning into a mammal are seldom, if ever, discussed. It would be silly to suppose that no evolutionist anywhere at any time ever dared speak of these difficult challenges for evolution, but they are not likely spoken of when PBS or National Geographic present one of their pro-evolution pieces.”

aniso, "I take it then, like Socrates, that you accept PBS and Discover Magazine, etc. as the final authorities on evolutionary science. Actually, it doesn't matter where the treatments are, you are incorrect in making such a casual statement. To do so, you should commit some more time to carefully studying the issues. Otherwise you look kind of silly."

I think evolution looks silly when it is critiqued.

You fail to address the point, once again. You apparently criticize evolution based on popular presentation and cartoon theories provided by your favorite professional creationists. That does, indeed, seem silly.

[weat]

HRG_new, "No.Evolution and the Oort cloud are inferred to exist - in the same sense as Sirius and Pluto are inferred to exist."

Weat, "We have photos of Pluto but not any of the Oort cloud that I am aware of."

HRG_new, "You mean we have observed photons in some pattern, from which we infer that they have come from a source. We have called this source Pluto. Similarly we have observed comets in some pattern, from which we infer that they have come from a source. We have called this source the Oort cloud.
The difference is quantitative, not qualitative."

Again, we have photos which prove that Pluto exists and photos of comets which prove they exist but no photos of the imagined Oort cloud.

HRG_new, "They are observed indirectly, as everything is observed indirectly to some degree. When you read this post, you infer from some nerve impulses which reach your brain that there is a computer screen in front of you. Actually, you could say that the computer screen "solves the problem" of explaining said nerve impulses - just as the Oort cloud "solves the problem" of long-period comets.""

Weat, "There is no proof that the Oort cloud exists.”


HRG_new, "In the same sense as there is no proof that Pluto exists. Proof, as the saying goes, is for mathematics and alcohol. The photons we believe to be coming from Pluto may have been created in mid-space by a powerful, but invisible djinn. The long-range comets may have been created in mid-space by Ctulhu etc."

Indeed, by the same logic, you may not exist. But Pluto does exist and your Oort cloud is so far more imaginary than real.

Weat, "It is postulated to solve a problem and, as you say, its existence is at best inferred from limited data.”

HRG_new, "Just as the existence of Pluto is inferred from a bit less limited data. It is postulated to solve the problem of some photons coming from particular directions in the sky."

The Oort cloud is not needed if the solar system is much younger than evolutionists believe. And Pluto is still there.

Weat, "That may be sufficient for people who hold to certain beliefs, but it may not be enough for others. There is no absolute proof and that is certain. ”

HRG_new, "See above. There is no absolute proof outside mathematics anyway. The difference is in degree. BTW, there are some people for which the evidence for a heliocentric solar system is not sufficient. Regards,
HRG."

As I said, it depends on what you believe in the first place. But the proof of Pluto's existence is considerably greater than the existence of the Oort cloud.

[weat]

weat:
When was this evidence compiled? Fish have been discovered in the Cambrian period only recently and this brings into question whether your supposed ancestors of fish predated the first fish.”

aniso, "However, those Cambrian fish DEFINITELY predated the true fishes of the mid-Paleozoic. There were also possible candidates for ancestors to the Cambrian fish provided to you."

Weat, "So you admit that your claimed fish evolution has no basis in fact any longer now that fish appear in the same Cambrian strata as their supposed ancestors? ”

aniso, "Where do you get that? They are effectively 'pre-fish'. They are fish that are more primitive and not quite fish except in how they are classified. They are classic precursors to true fish. You wanted an ancestor, so there is an example. Fish did not just pop into existence."

First of all, evolutionists supposed ancestors of these Cambrian fish exist at the same time. There is no reason to believe that the claimed ancestors are indeed ancestors. Secondly, evolutionists did not expect fish to exist in the Cambrian strata but they have been found there. Also discovered there are life forms which feed on fish. Likely we will find other fish in Cambrian strata but we have found fish there. Where is the evidence that they evolved? Where is the evidence that the other several dozen phyla of the Cambrian strata evolved?

Weat, "And those Cambrian fish are true fish. ”

aniso, "They are not fish in the sense of modern fish or even Devonian fish. They are more primitive and have been proposed as possible precursors to later fish."

They are fish.

I wrote, "Remember, these now earliest discovered fish had eyes apparently. ”

aniso, "Please document and compare with the eyes of true fish from the mid-Paleozoic. Then explain to us how those eyes evolved."

Eyes don't just happen despite your faith that they do. It is you who believes such stuff who should provide evidence that the eyes of fish, trilobites, etc., evolved.

Weat, "Now what evidence do you have for the evolution of these "first fish?" And what does more or less fishlike look like?”

aniso, "You have been repeatedly give possible precursors to the Cambrian fish. I see no reason to repeat them here."

Repeatedly? Maybe once or twice supposed ancestors have been mentioned which we now have proof did not precede the fish they supposedly evolved into.

Weat, "If you presuppose evolution, you should of course expect to find something which is somewhat similar to almost any creature and could be an ancestor. The problem is where is the proof?”

aniso, "Once again, expose your ignorance of science. Proof is not a necessary step in science, only an explanation supported by facts."

And your "facts" in the case of fish evolution have been refuted by science.

rthearle, "Still requiring absoluet proof from everyone but professional YECs... That's interesting. By the way, if you want proof, science seldom gives it to you. It only provides facts and explanations. Something that YECism never does."

Weat, "No, I am just not willing to "give" you eyes or anything else for that matter. Make your own body parts. Or, should I say, let's see your evolution make anything at all. As far as facts are concerned, evolution has an utter lack of facts.”

aniso, "So you say. However, denial of facts does not convert them to anything else."

I do not believe that evolution has any facts to support it. It is based entirely on supposition and the resulting interpretations.

Weat, "The Cambrian and pre-Cambrian strata document an explosion of a great deal of complex life forms appearing during a relatively short period of evolutionary time.”

aniso, "Well, if you consider tens of millions of years a short time, sure."

Weat, "Tens of millions? I have read of a much shorter time; as little as five to ten million years. It seems to be getting shorter and shorter. ”

aniso, "Actually there are tens of millions of years between Ediacaran fauna and the Cambrian 'explosion', plenty of time for significant evolution. This is the latest synthesis, regardless of what your professional creationists tell you."

And the Ediacaran fauna are not generally believed to be the ancestors of anything which exists today. Please, if you believe otherwise, provide proof of intermediates which link the Ediacaran fauna to the phyla which emerge in the Cambrian strata.

weat, "Many phyla appear with scant evidence of ancestors and too, there are not intermediates apparent which could connect these distinct phyla.”

aniso, "Actually, you have been given some."

weat, "There is scant evidence that the first dozens of complex life form types evolved from anything. They just abruptly appear in the fossil record. And now fish, critters with backbones, have been found there too. ”

aniso, "And there were other, more primitive life forms tens of millions of years earlier. Please explain this fact. '

You need to be more specific.

weat, "In light of that and the recent discovery of even creatures with backbones-fish-in the Cambrian strata, how can you claim that it is not true that there is no indication that fish evolved from a simpler life form?”

aniso, "Because we have the fossil record that indicates this is how life changed through time. We also know that there are possible candidates for precursors."

weat, "The fossil record reveals a great deal of stasis after the first body types, including millions and billions of representatives, appear with little evidence of having evolved.”

aniso, "Non-sequitur, again. I think maybe you are repeating yourself in a knee-jerk manner."

Or maybe just referring to the claims of the late Stephen Gould, among others, who attested to stasis as being most consistently seen in the fossil record. You mentioned life changing through time and stasis does not seem to support your claim.

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. Natural History, 86(5):13
"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

weat, "How can you prove that these life forms did not live at the same time? ”

aniso, "Well, we have to go with the data that we see. If you have contrary information that mammals, for instance, lived in the Cambrian you are remiss in not publishing it."

weat, "The latest data indicates that the supposed ancestors of fish lived at the same time as fish did. That is a problem for evolution. How do you evolve into somthing if it is already there?”

aniso, "They might have lived about the same time, but the precursors show up earlier in the record. You seem to be unremittingly confused on this point."

Where is your proof?

weat, "We are constantly finding creatures in strata in which they had not previously been found. That is increasingly challenging the evolution model.”

aniso, "Constantly? You mean everyday?"

weat, "Quite often. ”

aniso, "Please define 'quite often'. You evade. You said 'always', what do you have to support that statement?"

Fish were recently found in the Cambrian strata. Pipiscid fossils, once thought to have appeared in the upper Carboniferous, have recently also been discovered in Cambrian strata and Lystrosaurus, often used as an index fossils for the , early Triassic has been found in Permian rocks. Interesting though, that you are suddenly so concerned with the definition of "quite often" or "always" rather than trying to deal with the problem that such finds causes for evolution.

aniso, "This argument has been likewise specifically refuted as a 'problem for evolution'. No fossils have been found outside their previously known range in such a way as to challenge evolution. That is, unless, once again, you have been witholding information."

weat, "Fish were not believed to live in the Cambrian strata and have been found there. But in truth, nothing will be believed by evolutionists to be a problem for evolution.”

aniso, "Yes, they are more primitive than any previously known fish. They are precursors to the mid-Paleozoic fishes. Just what one would expect. I don't get your argument. You say that there are no precursors and yet when an obvious one shows up, you say, "Aha! But it has no precursors!"

The supposed ancestors of fish have been proven to simply be contemporaries of fish. There is no evidence that fish evolved from anything as I previously said. Why should we now believe you when you assure us that the Cambrian fish are precursors to other fish?

The Barbarian, "The second is the assertion that "evolutionists" never talk about the things that mark the transition between reptiles and mammals. One has only to open any book on evolution to see that's a lie. From Darwin on, it's a key part of evolutionary theory."

I wrote, "I never hear these problems mentioned.”

aniso, "And whose fault is that? You have been given such information repeatedly here and it is widely available in the media. You shouldn't go off making wild, unsupported statements. This should be a lesson to you."

weat, "Well, excuuuuussssee me. My point is that the public presentations of evolution never mention the difficult challenges which evolution must overcome in order to be a viable theory. ”

aniso, "Very well, consider yourself excused. Just let it be a lesson. Just remember that public presentations on commercial fusion power never mention the various difficulties of producing it. No budgets or anything! Does that mean that it is impossible or that someone is hiding something from you?"

We know that fusion works; we do not know that evolution works. And yes, evolutionists to a great degree hide the problems for evolution from the public.

weat, "My error was in not noting that I am referring primarily to public presentations of evolution. When evoluton is presented to the public, difficulties such as would be involved in a reptile turning into a mammal are seldom, if ever, discussed. It would be silly to suppose that no evolutionist anywhere at any time ever dared speak of these difficult challenges for evolution, but they are not likely spoken of when PBS or National Geographic present one of their pro-evolution pieces.”

aniso, "I take it then, like Socrates, that you accept PBS and Discover Magazine, etc. as the final authorities on evolutionary science. Actually, it doesn't matter where the treatments are, you are incorrect in making such a casual statement. To do so, you should commit some more time to carefully studying the issues. Otherwise you look kind of silly."

weat, "I think evolution looks silly when it is critiqued.”

aniso, "You fail to address the point, once again. You apparently criticize evolution based on popular presentation and cartoon theories provided by your favorite professional creationists. That does, indeed, seem silly."

PBS and National Geographic are relevant in our examining how evolution is presented to the public and that presentation is a white-washed version to be sure. The final authority on the truth or lack thereof of evolution can only be determined by an analysis of the latest scientific findings. I criticize evolution because after examining the arguments from two sides, the evidence to support evolution is obviously lacking. Apparently scientists too see that there is a problem.

Larry Hatfield. "Educators Against Darwin". Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest- growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

[The Barbarian]

For all the yelling and screaming, we have the same situation we had before; the oldest known fish are the most primitive, and the more recent strata have more evolved examples.

Weat has posted more evidence for evolution. Now, if he could come up with a bass or a catfish from that time, he'd be in business.

Haldane was once asked what could be a refutation of evolution. He said that a rabbit in Cambrian rock would do it. Why? Because they would be entirely out of sequence. The most primitive known vertebrates foiund in the Cambrian merely mean that they are older than expected, but they're still in the proper sequence in the rocks.

Why don't we see all sorts of creatures in different strata? Creationists can only shrug and mutter "Godmustadunnit". But evolutionary theory can explain why it happens.

[aniso]

Today @ 03:59 AM post located here
weat:

First of all, evolutionists supposed ancestors of these Cambrian fish exist at the same time. There is no reason to believe that the claimed ancestors are indeed ancestors.

Not an argument. There is no reason that a parent population could not continue to survive.

Secondly, evolutionists did not expect fish to exist in the Cambrian strata but they have been found there.

No biggie. Especially since they were more primitive fish. They are ancestors of the modern fishes.

Also discovered there are life forms which feed on fish.

Just more evidence that early fishes were present and that precursors came earlier.

Likely we will find other fish in Cambrian strata but we have found fish there. Where is the evidence that they evolved?

The ubiquitous progression of lifeforms through the fossil record.

Where is the evidence that the other several dozen phyla of the Cambrian strata evolved?

The presence of precursors in the Proterozoic and the presence of descendants in later Stages.

aniso, "They are not fish in the sense of modern fish or even Devonian fish. They are more primitive and have been proposed as possible precursors to later fish."

They are fish.

Good propaganda, but poor science, weat. When it is to your advantage you can be as general as a H-bomb, but then require us to be so specific as to name an exact, specific transitional.

aniso, "Please document and compare with the eyes of true fish from the mid-Paleozoic. Then explain to us how those eyes evolved."

Eyes don't just happen despite your faith that they do.

Does this mean that you will not back up your statement?

It is you who believes such stuff who should provide evidence that the eyes of fish, trilobites, etc., evolved.

I guess not. Weat has, once again, completely avoided the issue.

Weat, "If you presuppose evolution, you should of course expect to find something which is somewhat similar to almost any creature and could be an ancestor. The problem is where is the proof?”

aniso, "Once again, expose your ignorance of science. Proof is not a necessary step in science, only an explanation supported by facts."

And your "facts" in the case of fish evolution have been refuted by science.

Nonsense. You have provided no evidence or any documentation to back it up.

Weat, "No, I am just not willing to "give" you eyes or anything else for that matter. Make your own body parts. Or, should I say, let's see your evolution make anything at all. As far as facts are concerned, evolution has an utter lack of facts.”

aniso, "So you say. However, denial of facts does not convert them to anything else."

I do not believe that evolution has any facts to support it. It is based entirely on supposition and the resulting interpretations.

Good. I look forward to your complete explanation of the fossil record.

Weat, "The Cambrian and pre-Cambrian strata document an explosion of a great deal of complex life forms appearing during a relatively short period of evolutionary time.”

aniso, "Well, if you consider tens of millions of years a short time, sure."

Weat, "Tens of millions? I have read of a much shorter time; as little as five to ten million years. It seems to be getting shorter and shorter. ”

aniso, "Actually there are tens of millions of years between Ediacaran fauna and the Cambrian 'explosion', plenty of time for significant evolution. This is the latest synthesis, regardless of what your professional creationists tell you."

And the Ediacaran fauna are not generally believed to be the ancestors of anything which exists today. Please, if you believe otherwise, provide proof of intermediates which link the Ediacaran fauna to the phyla which emerge in the Cambrian strata.

Then you need to explain why they are so much more primitive and why they occurred so much earlier than the Cambrian forms. I see early manifestations of various body plans in the Ediacaran.

weat, "Many phyla appear with scant evidence of ancestors and too, there are not intermediates apparent which could connect these distinct phyla.”

aniso, "Actually, you have been given some."

weat, "There is scant evidence that the first dozens of complex life form types evolved from anything. They just abruptly appear in the fossil record. And now fish, critters with backbones, have been found there too. ”

aniso, "And there were other, more primitive life forms tens of millions of years earlier. Please explain this fact. '

You need to be more specific.

The Ediacaran fauna, for one.

...weat, "The fossil record reveals a great deal of stasis after the first body types, including millions and billions of representatives, appear with little evidence of having evolved.”

aniso, "Non-sequitur, again. I think maybe you are repeating yourself in a knee-jerk manner."

Or maybe just referring to the claims of the late Stephen Gould, among others, who attested to stasis as being most consistently seen in the fossil record. You mentioned life changing through time and stasis does not seem to support your claim.

I have no problem with stasis. Only YECs seem to.

weat, "How can you prove that these life forms did not live at the same time? ”

aniso, "Well, we have to go with the data that we see. If you have contrary information that mammals, for instance, lived in the Cambrian you are remiss in not publishing it."

weat, "The latest data indicates that the supposed ancestors of fish lived at the same time as fish did. That is a problem for evolution. How do you evolve into somthing if it is already there?”

aniso, "They might have lived about the same time, but the precursors show up earlier in the record. You seem to be unremittingly confused on this point."

Where is your proof?

There is no 'proof' in science. Once again your lack of training betrays you. My statement is perfectly logical. Just because a 'transitional species' might be found with a descendant does not negate the relationship.

aniso, "Please define 'quite often'. You evade. You said 'always', what do you have to support that statement?"

Fish were recently found in the Cambrian strata.

Yes, very primitive fish, probably precursors to modern fish.

Pipiscid fossils, once thought to have appeared in the upper Carboniferous, have recently also been discovered in Cambrian strata ...

Do you have evidence that they were the same species? I believe that 'pipiscid' covers an awful lot of ground. Not exactly an index fossil...

...and Lystrosaurus, often used as an index fossils for the , early Triassic has been found in Permian rocks.

I doubt that lystrosaurus is a very good index fossil. Besides, the early Triassic and the late Permian are not exactly at opposite ends of the Historical Geology textbook.

Interesting though, that you are suddenly so concerned with the definition of "quite often" or "always" rather than trying to deal with the problem that such finds causes for evolution.

Well, you have given three dubious examples and we have been looking for fossils for a couple of hundred years. Not exactly a plethora of data. Besides, these do not provide a 'problem' for evolution. Only for gullible YEC laymen.

aniso, "This argument has been likewise specifically refuted as a 'problem for evolution'. No fossils have been found outside their previously known range in such a way as to challenge evolution. That is, unless, once again, you have been witholding information."

weat, "Fish were not believed to live in the Cambrian strata and have been found there. But in truth, nothing will be believed by evolutionists to be a problem for evolution.”

aniso, "Yes, they are more primitive than any previously known fish. They are precursors to the mid-Paleozoic fishes. Just what one would expect. I don't get your argument. You say that there are no precursors and yet when an obvious one shows up, you say, "Aha! But it has no precursors!"

The supposed ancestors of fish have been proven to simply be contemporaries of fish. There is no evidence that fish evolved from anything as I previously said. Why should we now believe you when you assure us that the Cambrian fish are precursors to other fish?

You are repeating yourself. We know that fish evolved dramatically from the Cambrian to the Devonian. What is the big problem with thinking that the earliest precursors did not also evolve?

aniso, "And whose fault is that? You have been given such information repeatedly here and it is widely available in the media. You shouldn't go off making wild, unsupported statements. This should be a lesson to you."

weat, "Well, excuuuuussssee me. My point is that the public presentations of evolution never mention the difficult challenges which evolution must overcome in order to be a viable theory. ”

aniso, "Very well, consider yourself excused. Just let it be a lesson. Just remember that public presentations on commercial fusion power never mention the various difficulties of producing it. No budgets or anything! Does that mean that it is impossible or that someone is hiding something from you?"

We know that fusion works; we do not know that evolution works. And yes, evolutionists to a great degree hide the problems for evolution from the public.

It does? Please give me an example of a fusion reactor that is presently generating continuous power. I'm not saying the analogy is perfect. It is merely an instructive example to help you understand scientific reasoning. We know that fossil assemblages change with time. There is no other mechanism than evolution at this time.

aniso, "I take it then, like Socrates, that you accept PBS and Discover Magazine, etc. as the final authorities on evolutionary science. Actually, it doesn't matter where the treatments are, you are incorrect in making such a casual statement. To do so, you should commit some more time to carefully studying the issues. Otherwise you look kind of silly."

weat, "I think evolution looks silly when it is critiqued.”

aniso, "You fail to address the point, once again. You apparently criticize evolution based on popular presentation and cartoon theories provided by your favorite professional creationists. That does, indeed, seem silly."

PBS and National Geographic are relevant in our examining how evolution is presented to the public and that presentation is a white-washed version to be sure.

They provide only popular summaries of the data and the theory that explains the data. They also go off into pretty wild speculation at times that most circumspect viewers understand is sheer speculation. If you want the real scoop, read some scientific publications. PBS and NG are more interesting as anthropological studies of how people view evolution.

The final authority on the truth or lack thereof of evolution can only be determined by an analysis of the latest scientific findings.

Then why bother with the others?

I criticize evolution because after examining the arguments from two sides, the evidence to support evolution is obviously lacking. Apparently scientists too see that there is a problem.

There are very few scientists in a relevant field who deny the basic tenets of evolution. You take minor disagreements over exact mechanisms and make them into 'major problems' for evolution. Sheer nonsense.

Larry Hatfield. "Educators Against Darwin". Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest- growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science."

Heh, heh. Yeah, when you go from two to four educators, you've grown by 100%! And yes, that is pretty fast, but significant? No. And why are we talking about educators here and not scientists in the field?

As to the credentials, who cares? There are crackpots in every field. Do you think that we should give equal time to holocaust deniers, for instance? Some of them are pretty well educated, surely, but still wrong.

[HRG_new]

Today @ 03:04 AM post located here
weat:

HRG_new, "No.Evolution and the Oort cloud are inferred to exist - in the same sense as Sirius and Pluto are inferred to exist."

Weat, "We have photos of Pluto but not any of the Oort cloud that I am aware of."

HRG_new, "You mean we have observed photons in some pattern, from which we infer that they have come from a source. We have called this source Pluto. Similarly we have observed comets in some pattern, from which we infer that they have come from a source. We have called this source the Oort cloud.
The difference is quantitative, not qualitative."

Again, we have photos which prove that Pluto exists and photos of comets which prove they exist but no photos of the imagined Oort cloud.

HRG_new, "They are observed indirectly, as everything is observed indirectly to some degree. When you read this post, you infer from some nerve impulses which reach your brain that there is a computer screen in front of you. Actually, you could say that the computer screen "solves the problem" of explaining said nerve impulses - just as the Oort cloud "solves the problem" of long-period comets.""

Weat, "There is no proof that the Oort cloud exists.”


HRG_new, "In the same sense as there is no proof that Pluto exists. Proof, as the saying goes, is for mathematics and alcohol. The photons we believe to be coming from Pluto may have been created in mid-space by a powerful, but invisible djinn. The long-range comets may have been created in mid-space by Ctulhu etc."

Indeed, by the same logic, you may not exist. But Pluto does exist and your Oort cloud is so far more imaginary than real.

The problem debating with you is that you have a double standard of "proof".

I agree that we don't have a proof in the mathematical sense that the Oort cloud exists. But we don't have such a proof either for Pluto. Photos just demonstrate that some photons have hit a photographic plate. If you want to say that they must have come from Pluto, you must admit the same general assumptions about nature that you want to deny scientists in the case of evolution or the Oort cloud.

IOW, if you say that we have proof of Pluto, you obviously mean "proof to a high degree of certainty" or "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". But in this sense, we also have proof that the solar system is billion years old. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The inference that the Oort cloud exists (from observing comets) is perhaps a bit less certain that the inference that Pluto exists (from observing photons). But it is still valid to a high degree of certainty.

Weat, "It is postulated to solve a problem and, as you say, its existence is at best inferred from limited data.”

HRG_new, "Just as the existence of Pluto is inferred from a bit less limited data. It is postulated to solve the problem of some photons coming from particular directions in the sky."

The Oort cloud is not needed if the solar system is much younger than evolutionists believe. And Pluto is still there.

But scientists know , based on convincing evidence, that the solar system is billion years old, just as they know that Pluto is "there".

Regards,
HRG.