Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[BeyondET]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

The claim of Pangaea is what's made up from thin air. 

As you must know, Alfred Wegener proposed the Pangaea Theory in 1912.  Proponents of the theory like to present puzzle-maps, like this one:

 

heres one that is similiar but it has all the borders of the current nations.

 

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, BeyondET said:

heres one that is similiar but it has all the borders of the current nations.

 

Too bad it's as bogus as the other artist renderings.    That's the problem with artist renderings, and not satellite images with time machines. 

Earnest Haekle had a similar problem with his drawings.  The problem was they were drawings he made up.  They were debunked in 1860, but stuff like that dies hard (meaning it's still taught today).

 

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

That is simply an illustration of the general idea. There is no way you can use that to support a specific claim.

Only it is.  Some guy in 1912 drew up something like this.  That's all they have.

If you want I can Photoshop up a BP gas station in a drawing of Eden.  It would have the same value as 'evidence' in the BP theory.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

ETA: since I can't post a video here, search up "Plate Movement: 200 Million Years Ago to Present Day | California Academy of Sciences" on Youtube to show the reconstruction of history from 200Ma to present.

I bet it has Star Wars quality graphics, and all kinds of computer models, only they are not evidence.  They are speculation.  Those people who made the video were not here 200 million years ago.

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Even on this crude map, the land mass that would contain Mexico and Central America is clearly there - even though they aren't labeled.

Sorry, but that's just not true.  It's clearly not there on this crude map.

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Additionally, the reduced African continent seems to be something you made up entirely.

I guess you would have to actually look at a world map that deals in true scale, and then with a pair of scissors, clip out the continents and see for yourself how well Africa fits.    You want to act like it's a perfect fit puzzle, but it's not.  And it's an a priori fallacy to look past this problem.

Something tells me you think Pangea is fact.  Am I right?

[BeyondET]

29 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Too bad it's as bogus as the other artist renderings.    That's the problem with artist renderings, and not satellite images with time machines. 

Earnest Haekle had a similar problem with his drawings.  The problem was they were drawings he made up.  They were debunked in 1860, but stuff like that dies hard (meaning it's still taught today).

 

Ok how was it debunked in 1860?,

is there proof the earth is stationary doesn't move or something.

[Sparks]

39 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Ok how was it debunked in 1860?,

is there proof the earth is stationary doesn't move or something.

Earnest Haekle drew up pictures of bogus embryos to try to promote evolution theory.  His own university called him a fraud, but his 'discoveries' are still taught today.

In the photo below, notice Haeckle's drawings across the top row suggest that every embryo is related like we all have a common ancestor, but you can see real photographed embryos below those look quite different.

[one.opinion]

20 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Sorry, but that's just not true.  It's clearly not there on this crude map.

Denying the bridge between the hypothetical positions of North and South America really doesn't make it go away.

21 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I guess you would have to actually look at a world map that deals in true scale, and then with a pair of scissors, clip out the continents and see for yourself how well Africa fits.    You want to act like it's a perfect fit puzzle, but it's not.

No one thinks it is a "perfect fit puzzle". We can see where the continents probably fit, and geological similarities between disparate continents further support the concept. However, the continents obviously would have gone through some changes over the last 150 millions years. It doesn't make any sense to distrust the theory because Africa doesn't look identical to the hypothetical map.

24 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Something tells me you think Pangea is fact.  Am I right?

I'm a molecular biologist/virologist, not a geologist. However, I'm familiar enough with academia to have at considerable degree in confidence in the scientific process. So I believe there is really strong evidence for the ancient existence of Pangaea.

[Sparks]

17 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I'm a molecular biologist/virologist, not a geologist. However, I'm familiar enough with academia to have at considerable degree in confidence in the scientific process. So I believe there is really strong evidence for the ancient existence of Pangaea.

You were wise not go out on a limb, and claim fact.  Some do, but that's a religion.

[BeyondET]

10 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Earnest Haekle drew up pictures of bogus embryos to try to promote evolution theory.  His own university called him a fraud, but his 'discoveries' are still taught today.

In the photo below, notice the Haekle's drawings across the top row suggest that every embryo is related like we all have a common ancestor, but you can see real photographed embryos below those look quite different.

you mentioned the pangea rendering was debunked not embryos.

but even those do not look much different than the ones below it, why do human embryos have a tail 

[Sparks]

4 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

you mentioned the pangea rendering was debunked not embryos.

but even those do not look much different than the ones below it, why do human embryos have a tail 

No, I mentioned drawings can be faked, and that's what the two have in common.

Go back in your time machine, and bring back Satellite photos of Pangaea.  Do that, and we'll certify that the photos are not faked by an independent peer reviewed panel (also with time machines), and you'll have provided rock solid evidence for Pangaea.  

Tail?  We have a tail bone, but do you mean a spinal cord?