The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Wow. That's beautiful. If inter-breeding ability is indeed as definitive of Created Kinds as J C claims, then Hyla versicolor represents the first and sole member species of a new Created Kind. Indeed this would mean than any event which prevents a species from breeding within it's Kind would represent the beginning of a new Kind by J C's definition.

Mister Polo sir, you have my gratitude and respect. Ever since we finally managed to pin down a biological definition of Kinds from J C I've been intending to look for an example like this. And what an example. In fact, I think it makes The List. Take a bow sir

Actually I hate to be the one to say this but having done a little digging it seems that it is possible to hybridise H. versicolor with some other Hyla species (H. arborea, a French species). Never let it be said that we don't hold up our hands when we get it wrong.

I think this question stands though. If a mutation prevents a species from interbreeding with any member of its Kind, does this represent the formation of a new Kind? Will not further speciation from that isolated species not produce a Kind with many species? If not, how would you determine the difference between Created Kinds and these mere pseudokinds?

marco_polo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Actually I hate to be the one to say this but having done a little digging it seems that it is possible to hybridise H. versicolor with some other Hyla species (H. arborea, a French species). Never let it be said that we don't hold up our hands when we get it wrong.

I think this question stands though. If a mutation prevents a species from interbreeding with any member of its Kind, does this represent the formation of a new Kind? Will not further speciation from that isolated species not produce a Kind with many species? If not, how would you determine the difference between Created Kinds and these mere pseudokinds?

Oh well, looks like I was wrong.

In any case it is a very intresting example of speciation. No doubt caused by a loss of genetic information as a result of getting that duplicate pair of chromosomes.


Actually its seems it is not too difficult to create a new kind at all.

Polyploidy and Speciation

When a newly-arisen tetraploid (4n) plant tries to breed with its ancestral species (a backcross), triploid offspring are formed. These are sterile because they cannot form gametes with a balanced assortment of chromosomes.

However, the tetraploid plants can breed with each other. So in one generation, a new species has been formed.

Polyploidy even allows the formation of new species derived from different ancestors.

In 1928, the Russian plant geneticist Karpechenko produced a new species by crossing a cabbage with a radish. Although belonging to different genera (Brassica and Raphanus respectively), both parents have a diploid number of 18. Fusion of their respective gametes (n=9) produced mostly infertile hybrids.

However, a few fertile plants were formed, probably by the spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number in somatic cells that went on to form gametes (by meiosis). Thus these contained 18 chromosomes — a complete set of both cabbage (n=9) and radish (n=9) chromosomes.

Fusion of these gametes produced vigorous, fully-fertile, polyploid plants with 36 chromosomes. (Unfortunately, they had the roots of the cabbage and the leaves of the radish.)

These plants could breed with each other but not with either the cabbage or radish ancestors, so Karpechenko had produced a new species.
The process also occurs in nature. Three species in the mustard family appear to have arisen by hybridization and polyploidy from three other ancestral species:

* B. oleracea (cabbage, broccoli, etc.) hybridized with B. nigra (black mustard) → B. carinata (Abyssinian mustard).
* B. oleracea x B. campestris (turnips) → B. napus (rutabaga)
* B. nigra x B. campestris → B. juncea (leaf mustard)

Modern wheat and perhaps some of the other plants listed in the table above have probably evolved in a similar way.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html

Flamed Diving

They found a new bird kind.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7763797.stm

AtomicHorror

marco_polo wrote: »

Actually its seems it is not too difficult to create a new kind at all.



http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html

Well, since the backcross still produces offspring (albeit sterile) the "Kind" barrier is not broken. Extinction of the ancestor species would do the trick though.

marco_polo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well, since the backcross still produces offspring (albeit sterile) the "Kind" barrier is not broken. Extinction of the ancestor species would do the trick though.

"These plants could breed with each other but not with either the cabbage or radish ancestors, so Karpechenko had produced a new species. "

Open to correction of coure but rather than the offspring being infertile, I interpreted this to mean the backcross was not possible, as unlike tetraploids with a single ancestral species, neither the cabbage or the radish are the full ancestral species.

More here that seems to imply the same. (Mucho scrolling required)

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htm

AtomicHorror

marco_polo wrote: »

"These plants could breed with each other but not with either the cabbage or radish ancestors, so Karpechenko had produced a new species. "

Open to correction here but rather than the offspring being infertile, I interpreted this to mean the backcross was not possible, as unlike tetraploids with a single ancestral species, neither the cabbage or the radish are the full ancestral species.

I was going by the first line:

When a newly-arisen tetraploid (4n) plant tries to breed with its ancestral species (a backcross), triploid offspring are formed. These are sterile because they cannot form gametes with a balanced assortment of chromosomes.

But I'm possibly getting lost in the generations there. Seems like they're talking about an ancestral generation, a diploid hybrid f1 generation and then finally the tetraploid f2 generation representing the new species. Not sure whether they're backcrossing from f2 to f1 or from f2 to f0. Both should give a triploid offspring, assuming it works.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....Ge 3:1 ¶ Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"

Well yes, that is exactly my point. Creationists are the "serpent", more cunning than any beast of the field.

Look at the lies and misdirection Creationists have resorted to to try and convince people they are right. Look at this even irrespective of the question of whether what they are trying to convince people of is true or not. How many heads of major Creationist movements have been convinced of crimes of deceit, such as tax evasion? Again that fact stands irrespective of whether Creationism is actually true or not. Creationism being true Ken is still in prison, AiG is still avoiding tax.

How many cases of misquotes and out of context posts have you yourself (albeit probably in ignorance rather than as a conscious attempt to misdirect) posted on this forum alone simple because you copy and paste from Creationist websites (who do know they are misrepresenting and lying about what scientists say)?

It seems funny that the messengers of the "truth", the defenders of God's Word, would be people peddling in lies, ignorance and misdirection.

Can the rest of us really look at someone who peddles lies in the aim of defending God's truth (or what he thinks it should be) and see anything other than the serpent?

Galvasean

marco_polo wrote: »

Not by JCs definition of a kind as the ability to interbreed directly or with intermediates.

Something tells me that's not going to change his mind.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

They found a new bird kind.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7763797.stm

*steals to put in palaeontology forum*

robindch

Having solved its social problems, Romania concentrates on removing evolution from its school curriculum:

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/4652/46/

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Having solved its social problems, Romania concentrates on removing evolution from its school curriculum:

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/4652/46/

Epic fail.

robindch

Smarter blokes have more healthy little fellas:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7767877.stm

If I were a creationist, I'd be worried.

Zombrex

Interesting article in this months Scientific America about PNA, a possible precursor to RNA and DNA and possibly even proteins. Seemingly it is a lot more stable molecule while still allowing the transfer of information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_nucleic_acid

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Interesting article in this months Scientific America about PNA, a possible precursor to RNA and DNA and possibly even proteins. Seemingly it is a lot more stable molecule while still allowing the transfer of information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_nucleic_acid

It does sound like a neat little polymer. I would imagine that the reality of abiogenesis was probably a mixture of RNA/DNA/PNA and many other polymers competing. One of these started the common ancestor and later switched to DNA because of the stability/mutability balance.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Having solved its social problems, Romania concentrates on removing evolution from its school curriculum:

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/4652/46/

The theory of the Origin of Species and the evolution of humans is no longer present in the compulsory curriculum, through a nationwide decision made under the previous Government in 2006

Did they never hear the phase 'out with the old'?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

How many heads of major Creationist movements have been convinced of crimes of deceit, such as tax evasion? Again that fact stands irrespective of whether Creationism is actually true or not. Creationism being true Ken is still in prison, AiG is still avoiding tax.

Are you in receipt of inside information? Or are you confusing Ken Ham with someone else, and Answers In Genesis with American International Group, the insurance giant the US Treasury rescued last month with a cash lifeline that could reach $123 billion, promoted an abusive tax shelter that, when used by AIG and other companies, resulted in an initial loss of at least $3.7 billion in federal tax revenues, according to the Internal Revenue Service. ?
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/10/21/bailouts_spur_calls_to_end_tax_dodges/

And are you accusing Answers In Genesis of tax evasion, or tax avoidance? And you do know the difference, don't you?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How so? The state of being fallen or non-fallen is not testable scientifically, so it does not enter into the evolutionary model either way.

I was pointing out that for the official Catholic position, it does.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Are you in receipt of inside information? Or are you confusing Ken Ham with someone else
...
And are you accusing Answers In Genesis of tax evasion, or tax avoidance? And you do know the difference, don't you?

Apologies, that was a spelling mistaken. It should of course be Kent, not Ken, as in Kent Hovind, currently serving 10 years for 58 counts of tax fraud.

I wasn't implying that Answers in Genesis was having tax fraud issues (though this wouldn't surprise me in the least), they have their own set of illegal and immoral money making activities to contend with, which is what I was referencing -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_controversy_between_Answers_in_Genesis_and_Creation_Ministries_International

I'm surprised that such a regular copy and paster from AiG such as yourself Wolfsbane was unaware of this?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I was pointing out that for the official Catholic position, it does.

Why? How could the theory contradict such a vague and ill-defined point as the the Catholic view of the fall etc?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Are you in receipt of inside information? Or are you confusing Ken Ham with someone else, and Answers In Genesis with American International Group, the insurance giant the US Treasury rescued last month with a cash lifeline that could reach $123 billion, promoted an abusive tax shelter that, when used by AIG and other companies, resulted in an initial loss of at least $3.7 billion in federal tax revenues, according to the Internal Revenue Service. ?
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/10/21/bailouts_spur_calls_to_end_tax_dodges/

And are you accusing Answers In Genesis of tax evasion, or tax avoidance? And you do know the difference, don't you?

I can't comment on this, but I can say that AIG conducted a video interview (under false pretences initially) with Richard Dawkins some years ago which they subsequently heavily edited in order to make it appear as if Dawkins is confounded by a question they put to him. The group are also currently being sued for deceptive business practices by former partners Creation Ministries International.

So, that's two points against them anyway.

The accusation against Hovind stands, though of course most YEC's (including AIG) want little to do with that criminal these days.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

It could be argued (strongly) that you are in fact doing the exact opposite.

Assuming God exists (which I'm sure you do), and the vast overwhelming evidence is that evolution happens, the inescapable conclusion is that evolution is part of God's plan, some how.

This equally fits with how His book, including Genesis, should be interpreted.

By insisting on the false doctrine that evolution of life didn't happen, you are not only going against science, but going against the very Creator, and his book, that you claim to worship.

Christians down through the years, including Aquanas, have argued against this exact thing that Creationists do.

Denying the truth of reality that is all around you is ultimately denying God.

We dispute the vast overwhelming evidence is that evolution happens, and if that is the case the inescapable conclusion is that evolution is part of God's plan, some how, is not inescapable afterall.

This equally fits with how His book, including Genesis, should be interpreted also fails to deal with the fact that Genesis and the New Testament references to Creation cannot be reconciled with the evolutionary model. One may hold both, but not logically.

I don't know what Aquinas said on the issue, but the Bible is very clear about a couple of things that rule out evolution:
1. A recent creation of the present biosphere. Even allowing for some gaps in the genealogies, a figure of thousands rather than millions is necessitated.
2. The creation, including the biosphere, was very good in God's assessment at the beginning. That rules out suffering and death.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

We dispute the vast overwhelming evidence is that evolution happens, and if that is the case the inescapable conclusion is that evolution is part of God's plan, some how, is not inescapable afterall.

This equally fits with how His book, including Genesis, should be interpreted also fails to deal with the fact that Genesis and the New Testament references to Creation cannot be reconciled with the evolutionary model. One may hold both, but not logically.

I don't know what Aquinas said on the issue, but the Bible is very clear about a couple of things that rule out evolution:
1. A recent creation of the present biosphere. Even allowing for some gaps in the genealogies, a figure of thousands rather than millions is necessitated.
2. The creation, including the biosphere, was very good in God's assessment at the beginning. That rules out suffering and death.

Putting aside my take on the bible, what is it that rules out Genesis being an allegory? I realise that you maintain that Jesus referenced Genesis as if true, but how certain are you that Jesus was also not using allegory?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

We dispute the vast overwhelming evidence is that evolution happens, and if that is the case the inescapable conclusion is that evolution is part of God's plan, some how, is not inescapable afterall.

Well yes, but that is because you are being deceived by the Serpent (the Creationism Industry)

Was that not clear from my post?

wolfsbane wrote: »

This equally fits with how His book, including Genesis, should be interpreted also fails to deal with the fact that Genesis and the New Testament references to Creation cannot be reconciled with the evolutionary model. One may hold both, but not logically.

Another lie peddled to you by the Creationism industry, which you seem happy to lap up despite all the problems it raises with pretty much every branch of science known to man. The vast majority of Christians have reconciled Genesis with the world they see around them, going back as far as Aquinas.

"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."
Thomas Aquinas

And what would the Serpent wish more than to turn the truth of your faith into a matter or ridicule by associating it with dogma that has been shown to be false (Young Earth Creationism)? While claiming to value your faith you are actually helping to destroy it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't know what Aquinas said on the issue, but the Bible is very clear about a couple of things that rule out evolution:
1. A recent creation of the present biosphere. Even allowing for some gaps in the genealogies, a figure of thousands rather than millions is necessitated.
2. The creation, including the biosphere, was very good in God's assessment at the beginning. That rules out suffering and death.

An science is very clear that that didn't happen. So how you are interpreting the Bible, your Creationist dogma, is wrong. Your refusal to accept that, your stubborn attachment to a dogma demonstrated to be false, merely brings your faith to the point of ridicule and rejection, exactly as Aquinas warned it would nearly 1500 years ago.

All hail the Serpent!

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Apologies, that was a spelling mistaken. It should of course be Kent, not Ken, as in Kent Hovind, currently serving 10 years for 58 counts of tax fraud.

I wasn't implying that Answers in Genesis was having tax fraud issues (though this wouldn't surprise me in the least), they have their own set of illegal and immoral money making activities to contend with, which is what I was referencing -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_controversy_between_Answers_in_Genesis_and_Creation_Ministries_International

I'm surprised that such a regular copy and paster from AiG such as yourself Wolfsbane was unaware of this?

That's better.

Yes, I was aware of the dispute between the two groups - in fact I posted an article about it some time ago. I'm not sure which group has the balance of right on this - but it looks like you do, since you accuse AIG of illegal and immoral money making activities .

To me it looked more a dispute about who best represented the vision the ministry set out with. If AIG is not the authentic voice, then they would be guilty of damaging the CMI by misrepresentation. If otherwise, then CMI is the one doing the damage.

Kent Hovind is another matter. I never used his material - seemed into a lot of alternative therapies as far as I recall.

Also, I think he was into the peculiar American civil liberties idea that the Federal government had no legal authority to raise taxes. Something about States' rights.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Putting aside my take on the bible, what is it that rules out Genesis being an allegory? I realise that you maintain that Jesus referenced Genesis as if true, but how certain are you that Jesus was also not using allegory?

If the Genesis creation account is an allegory, then any other part of the Bible that presents itself in similar apparently historical narrative fashion may also be allegory. That means in effect that every part of the Bible may be so treated. The historical accounts of the Old and New Testaments, including the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ - all are up for grabs.

It is an invalid hermeneutic. All it does is to remove meaning from any statement.

If Christ used an allegory to establish the sanctity of marriage - it was not so from the beginning - then can I be allegorically faithful to my wife, but actually divorce her in space/time? No, the NT use of the Genesis account entails a historical narrative understanding of it.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

To me it looked more a dispute about who best represented the vision the ministry set out with. If AIG is not the authentic voice, then they would be guilty of damaging the CMI by misrepresentation. If otherwise, then CMI is the one doing the damage.

Er no, like nearly everything associated with the Creationism industry, it was a dispute about money.

AiG America wanted to stop selling the Australian groups magazine to subscribers and start selling them their own.

Why you ask my innocent friend? Because then they get all the MONEY!!

The Austrian group were particularly miffed about this because they wanted all the MONEY

Money money money, its really all Creationism is about when you scratch the surface. Money making the guise of faith. Pretty sad when one thinks about it.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

If the Genesis creation account is an allegory, then any other part of the Bible that presents itself in similar apparently historical narrative fashion may also be allegory. That means in effect that every part of the Bible may be so treated. The historical accounts of the Old and New Testaments, including the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ - all are up for grabs.

How about you just do like other christian sects and use your brain when it comes to the distinction?

It is an invalid hermeneutic. All it does is to remove meaning from any statement.

If Christ used an allegory to establish the sanctity of marriage - it was not so from the beginning - then can I be allegorically faithful to my wife, but actually divorce her in space/time? No, the NT use of the Genesis account entails a historical narrative understanding of it.

Dictionary.com wrote:

al⋅le⋅go⋅ry
   /ˈæləˌgɔri, -ˌgoʊri/[al-uh-gawr-ee, -gohr-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.
2. a symbolical narrative: the allegory of Piers Plowman.
3. emblem (def. 3).

I'm afraid I don't see how you could be allegorically faithful to your wife.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We dispute the vast overwhelming evidence is that evolution happens, and if that is the case the inescapable conclusion is that evolution is part of God's plan, some how, is not inescapable afterall. Well yes, but that is because you are being deceived by the Serpent (the Creationism Industry)

Was that not clear from my post?

It was. And it is certainly true that one of us is being deceived by Satan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
This equally fits with how His book, including Genesis, should be interpreted also fails to deal with the fact that Genesis and the New Testament references to Creation cannot be reconciled with the evolutionary model. One may hold both, but not logically.
Another lie peddled to you by the Creationism industry, which you seem happy to lap up despite all the problems it raises with pretty much every branch of science known to man. The vast majority of Christians have reconciled Genesis with the world they see around them, going back as far as Aquinas.

Creationists have no bother reconciling Genesis with the world they see around them - but they do have in reconciling it with the Theory of Evolution. We do not see that theory in operation around us.

"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."
Thomas Aquinas

No problem with that quote. When scientific scrutiny shows Creationism to be false, you will have something to talk about. All you have now is a model that tries to make a case of the forensic evidence. Creationists too have a model, and both have their cases apparently supported by some of the evidence and contradicted by other parts.

And what would the Serpent wish more than to turn the truth of your faith into a matter or ridicule by associating it with dogma that has been shown to be false (Young Earth Creationism)? While claiming to value your faith you are actually helping to destroy it.

It hasn't been show to be false. But the Serpent continues to claim that God was lying. And the consensus of the scientific community agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I don't know what Aquinas said on the issue, but the Bible is very clear about a couple of things that rule out evolution:
1. A recent creation of the present biosphere. Even allowing for some gaps in the genealogies, a figure of thousands rather than millions is necessitated.
2. The creation, including the biosphere, was very good in God's assessment at the beginning. That rules out suffering and death.
An science is very clear that that didn't happen.

No. The scientific community (most of ) is very clear that it didn't happen.

So how you are interpreting the Bible, your Creationist dogma, is wrong. Your refusal to accept that, your stubborn attachment to a dogma demonstrated to be false, merely brings your faith to the point of ridicule and rejection, exactly as Aquinas warned it would nearly 1500 years ago.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P. (also Thomas of Aquin or Aquino; c. 1225–7 March 1274) Your chronology is as flawed as your science.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationists have no bother reconciling Genesis with the world they see around them - but they do have in reconciling it with the Theory of Evolution. We do not see that theory in operation around us.

But you see, Wolfsbane, this is precisely the problem. The mechanism of evolution is a fact of the modern world around us - the theory is just the human explanation of how that mechanism works.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If the Genesis creation account is an allegory, then any other part of the Bible that presents itself in similar apparently historical narrative fashion may also be allegory. That means in effect that every part of the Bible may be so treated. The historical accounts of the Old and New Testaments, including the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ - all are up for grabs.
How about you just do like other christian sects and use your brain when it comes to the distinction?

I'm all for using one's brain. But what they do is use their whims. They have no logical/rational/hermeneutical basis for picking and choosing what is allegory or not - if the apparently historical narrative of Genesis is really allegorical. For example, why must the resurrection of Christ be a literal historical event and not an allegory?

Quote:
It is an invalid hermeneutic. All it does is to remove meaning from any statement.

If Christ used an allegory to establish the sanctity of marriage - it was not so from the beginning - then can I be allegorically faithful to my wife, but actually divorce her in space/time? No, the NT use of the Genesis account entails a historical narrative understanding of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
al⋅le⋅go⋅ry
   /ˈæləˌgɔri, -ˌgoʊri/[al-uh-gawr-ee, -gohr-ee]
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.
2. a symbolical narrative: the allegory of Piers Plowman.
3. emblem (def. 3).

I'm afraid I don't see how you could be allegorically faithful to your wife.

In the same sense that Adam and Eve were, if Genesis was allegorical:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

But you seem to agree that such an allegorical relationship is nonsense.

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

But you see, Wolfsbane, this is precisely the problem. The mechanism of evolution is a fact of the modern world around us - the theory is just the human explanation of how that mechanism works.

I've seen no such 'fact'. Have you seen, for example, a dog evolve into a non-dog? I've read speculation about what dogs may have evolved from, but seen no facts.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've seen no such 'fact'. Have you seen, for example, a dog evolve into a non-dog? I've read speculation about what dogs may have evolved from, but seen no facts.

If you stumbled upon a scene where you found a woman, stabbed to death. The knife is left at the scene with fingerprints that match a local madman. A smashed clock states the time is 3.15pm. A panicked phonecall to emergency services was made from her phone at 3.15pm. The killer took various pictures at different stages of him murdering her and left them strewn around the scene.

If someone came to you and asked what your conclusion (what happened and when) was, would you say: 'I don't know, I didn't see the event happen in continuous time, therefore any conclusion is pure speculation and hence, invalid.'?