botheration: "Or haven't they invented that stuff yet?"

Exactly!

The "facts" of science and history not only depend on the available "evidence" (e.g. fossils, artifacts), but the available technologies to analyse that evidence.

You can only analyse fossils you have unearthed, not ones you haven't discovered yet.
And you can only examine them with currently existing technologies, not technologies that haven't been invented yet.

New fossils or new technologies could result in different conclusions and revisions of previously believed "fact".

And you must *interpret* the results of any analysis, determining how it fits into existing knowledge.

Many of the fossils used to "prove" evolution are tiny fragments, like a tooth or a toe.
From this miniscule basis, elaborate conclusions are drawn.

This is why Dan says "Don't confuse evidence with conclusions".
The evidence is a toe bone.
The conclusions are based on available technologies, other fossil records, current scientific theorising and hypothetical conjecture.

In a hundred years time, that toe bone will be exactly the same "evidence".
But changes in technology or theory, or the discovery of additional fossils, could lead to different conclusions about what it means.

BTW, Pelican Cat continued to have widespread popularity, even after scientists had disproved it.

There was even a cartoon superhero.
The theme tune went:
"Pelican Cat, Pelican Cat.
He'll show those bad guys just where it's at.
Pelican Cat, Pelican Cat.
Fighting for Justice. No turning back.
Go, go, go, go! Pelican Cat."

I think what shockedelic is saying is that error always exists in all past events clues we use to 'create the fact'...ie from bones of cat/pelican to concluding pelicancat in which case the error is 100%...

And why I dont understand some posters 'group' taking a 'more right that you' attitude when any reasonable mind understands that the above factor of error exists in all things we now take as having occurred in the past...and form the basics of statistical error eg chi factor...or in the alternative those whom have a belief of events did happen but do not have the definite proof...eg before dead sea scrolls were discovered the oldest existent bible was 9thcentury...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Significance ...what happened to all those who said there is no evidence to Christ when dead sea scrolls carbon date to almost 100years after...meaning actual events within limits of living memory of the authors...

so if we then take that all those miracles did happen...walk on water (an example cris angel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA )feeding thousands, calming storms... then a human existed with such enormous powers over material/nature and to whom souls of the time had a special acknowledgment with...who said 'god does exist'...now go figure...

I think all souls need to find a balance between materialism/spiritualism...materialism is the study/use outside us while spirituality is the study/use within us eg http://www.hinduism.co.za/self-rea.htm ...great minds have applied themselves to this question...as well as numerous lesser minds...so wade through the information with care...

And spending too much thought/action/use in one area over the other cant be too good in eventual practical outcome to the person ie 'self'...and while the power of 'the reasoning mind' is always applied to all information/beliefs we receive/perceive...it at least make for an interesting effective life...responding to the full breath and extent of the 'real' daily reality we find ourselves in...

Sam
Ps~yep that makes it a total of material/self/spiritual factors to make the whole to 'meaning of life' for a start...

“I only disagree that it is displayed in the fossil record.” (Dan) “The fossils. No one has really said anything about fossils, except to say that they show evolution. That’s not evidence. That’s an assertion.” (Dan)
“You can only analyse fossils you have unearthed, -- you can only examine them with currently existing technologies”, “Many of the fossils used to "prove" evolution are tiny fragments,”(Shockadelic)

These statements are grossly extreme in selective use of evidence and abuse of science: Religious-myth evangelical indeed. Hardly worth pursuing the theme after that, but here is a short romp through the fossil record.

3,500 years, complete representation, not fragments, of stromatolites. If you don’t believe the science behind the dating, don’t trust those scientists who put together the necessary for medical radiography to treat cancers etc..
2,500 years ago, first appreciable concentration of oxygen (resulting from evolved biological activity) in the ocean and the rusting of iron in it – causing formation of the Hammersley Ranges iron ore deposits in Western Australia. Unusually large for a fossil, but there you are. Age obtained as for stromatolites.
500 years back, oxygen-breathing animals had evolved, and “notochord” (predecessor of spinal cord) animals (full-size specimens) were recorded for the first time.
400 million years past, some plants evolved for a land-based existence. We’ve got full-sized fossils from that time, some just like Tassell Ferns. Animals also evolved to inhabit this new plant world. Lungfish (full-size fossils available) had a bob-each-way at 380 million years. They or their cousins started the evolutionary chain of air-breathers to reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals.
There were plenty of full-size fossils (the complete 3 centimeters length of them) of early mammals about 200 million years ago. Our milk-ancestors, or their cousins.
From 2 million years ago to the present, a great many fossil human-like skulls have been unearthed. Sorry about the dearth of toe-bones, but the head-bones are the most important bits.

For those dismissing the fossil lineage as evidence of evolution, I note that all successful oil-exploring enterprises believe in it, and find it most useful.

One difficulty with conversations like this is that we assume we are all speaking the same language when we are not. George used the word naive in one post and later had to explain that he had not intended its popular meaning but rather had in mind a technical use of the word. Likewise the word myth is being used throughout the thread with different meanings. There are those in this thread who regard myth as more or less synonymous with 'lie'. Others seem to be using it for its literary, technical meaning as an 'identifying narrative' within a community. While one side regards myth as worthless lies and the other holds myth up as of fundamental importance in forming and maintaining community this converation is doomed to go around in circles.
It is also worthing noting the dull repetition evident in the creation-evolution squabble.
There is also a widespread misunderstanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Here the word 'theory' is mishandled in much the same way as the word 'myth' as in ... it's only a theory...
There is also some very bad science being suggested such as the suggestion that one can 'prove' gravity theory by jumping off the garage roof.

Colinsett thinks this statement is "grossly extreme" and "religious-myth evangelical":
"You can only analyse fossils you have unearthed, with currently existing technologies."

Extreme? Religious?
What?!!

I support no particular creation mythology, but am merely open to the idea that "all is not what it seems" and that any number of things may have happened throughout time to create all this weirdness around us, including "intelligent involvement".

I doubt and question everything: science, religion, political ideologies.

I *adore* Darwin.
(He's in my Top 100 Adored Persons List. And no FrankGol, Hitler doesn't make it.)

Darwin was a brave and curious person, who questioned and wondered.
A description that would rarely apply to his subsequent disciples.
(He was even honest enough to be concerned about the "problem" the Cambrian explosion presented.)

Oil-exploring enterprises believe in finding oil, not scientific or spiritual truth.
Fossils lead them to oil, that's all.

Evolution is supposed to be going on *all the time*, yet there are species that have changed little, or not at all, for hundreds of millions of years!

The mean species turnover time (the time a species lasts before it is replaced) averages about 2-3 million years.

These guys didn't get the memo:

Army ants: 100 million years (so far)
Wollemi Pine: 150 million years
Salamanders: 150 million years
Cicadas: 150 million years
Tuatara: 200 million years
Cycads: 200 million years
Emperor dragonflies: 230 million years
Cockroaches: 250 million years
Green sturgeon: 250 million years
Ginkgo trees: 270 million years
Horseshoe crabs: 300 million years
Lungfish: 350 million years
Coelacanth fish: 400 million years
Colymbosathon ecplecticos: 425 million years
Velvet worms: 500 million years
Nautiluses: 500 million years

Come on, guys. It's been 500 million years already!
Mutate, dammit, mutate!

You're making the evolutionists look foolish, so please behave yourselves and start evolving.

The religious aren't the only "true believers".

Try having a sensible "doubt-based" discussion with an anarchist, feminist, environmentalist, socialist, laissez-faire capitalist, multiculturalist, or protestor/activist (animal rights, pro-choice, anti-globalisation, you name it).

These aren't religious ideologies, but question their "faith" and they react like rabid demon-possessed epileptics!
Grrrr!!

Evangelistic myths of the overzealous faithful - Shokadelic clings to them, otherwise (his?) curiosity would indulge some further exploration and understanding of the evolutionary record before racing to print. “Evolution is supposed to be going on all the time, yet there are species that have changed little, or not at all, for hundreds of millions of years!” – he says, and proceeds to list some that have hung in there as evidence supporting his concept, while ignoring my previous mention of a 3,500 million year persistent life form.
It would have to be evangelical faith in a belief to be able to dismiss the evidence for a continuing evolutionary process by pointing out a list of more persistent species. The process is a smooth ride for periods, extremely bumpy at others.
With a minor amount of investigation, for those not dogmatically opposed to having their faith bent, it would become apparent that medical science in matters of disease and repair is dependent upon understanding the evolutionary make-up of the human body, and its development, its step-by-step build-up of components of bacterial cells, from such early ancestors of three and a half billion years back. That build-up is of components, many of which have changed little for all that time – but have formed consortiums of entities, and essential symbiosis of others. Without that understanding, the treatment of a vast range of infections, and the pathway to repair of bodily damage would have remained stunted. For instance, we now know that giardia infection is difficult to treat because components of our biological make-up remain closely related to that nasty bit of goods called giardia - which has hardly changed in a billion years.