can we even conclude that the dinosaurs once lived? I'd categorize that as an assumption, not a fact derived from science, correct?
quote:I don't think this is true. We have bones. It's an assumption that bones came from a once living creature.
We can conclude from the facts that dinosaurs once lived.
quote:That begs the question.
Can you show me some bones that didn't once come from a living creature that aren't a prop or toy or teaching tool?
quote:quote:That begs the question.
Can you show me some bones that didn't once come from a living creature that aren't a prop or toy or teaching tool?
quote:quote:I don't think this is true. We have bones. It's an assumption that bones came from a once living creature.
We can conclude from the facts that dinosaurs once lived.
quote:I said "from a scientific perspective." Evidence that bones found in the ground are from once living creatures. You are assuming they were from once living creatures and asking me for proof that they are not.quote:No, you have to establish that thousands of remains in the character of articulated animals are not actually the remains of animals. To do this, you have to have a plausible explanation. Otherwise you're running down the rabbit hole that ends with total uncertainty of reality. If you are a theist, you're questioning whether your God can be trusted or not.quote:That begs the question.
Can you show me some bones that didn't once come from a living creature that aren't a prop or toy or teaching tool?
quote:Yes, all that.quote:And footprints and fossilized eggs and nests and gastroliths and so on...quote:I don't think this is true. We have bones. It's an assumption that bones came from a once living creature.
We can conclude from the facts that dinosaurs once lived.
quote:That's so much better.
good one. I like this one better:
quote:
can we even conclude that the dinosaurs once lived? I'd categorize that as an assumption, not a fact derived from science, correct?
quote:What is the evidence?quote:How bout we say that the overwhelming quantity and quality of evidence supporting the conclusion that dinosaurs once lived on Earth
can we even conclude that the dinosaurs once lived? I'd categorize that as an assumption, not a fact derived from science, correct?
quote:
Let's just say that the ability to sequence massive amounts of DNA, and the bioinformatic tools available to analyse that data has put a nice bow on all of the previous work in paleontology and comparative anatomy.
quote:
Are all these jokes and cartoons attempting to mask the realization that this is an assumption, not a scientific conclusion?
quote:quote:
Let's just say that the ability to sequence massive amounts of DNA, and the bioinformatic tools available to analyse that data has put a nice bow on all of the previous work in paleontology and comparative anatomy.
I'm curious about what those tools add to our study of dinosaurs. I was under the impression that genetic material from dinosaurs was unavailable.
quote:Sure, a male sperm uniting with a female egg produces a unique human being.quote:Can you give me an example of a scientific fact or a valid scientific conclusion so I have an idea of where the goalposts are?
Are all these jokes and cartoons attempting to mask the realization that this is an assumption, not a scientific conclusion?
quote:quote:I said "from a scientific perspective." Evidence that bones found in the ground are from once living creatures. You are assuming they were from once living creatures and asking me for proof that they are not.quote:No, you have to establish that thousands of remains in the character of articulated animals are not actually the remains of animals. To do this, you have to have a plausible explanation. Otherwise you're running down the rabbit hole that ends with total uncertainty of reality. If you are a theist, you're questioning whether your God can be trusted or not.quote:That begs the question.
Can you show me some bones that didn't once come from a living creature that aren't a prop or toy or teaching tool?
quote:Still begging the question.
Yes, you have to provide proof that they are not the remains of once living animals since those remains check off every box you would want for previously living animals.
quote:quote:Still begging the question.
Yes, you have to provide proof that they are not the remains of once living animals since those remains check off every box you would want for previously living animals.
quote:Evidence doesn't point. People do. They also assume their position is correct in order to prove it.
The burden of proof is on you. And it's not begging the question to say that all of the evidence points in one direction.
quote:Those conclusions would have about as much "scientific" basis as the assumption that they lived at one time.
MQB what is the alternative? They were placed there? They are really just natural geologic formations?