Jump to content


Photo

Let's Stack The Deck For Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
171 replies to this topic

#161 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 03 August 2009 - 09:32 AM

Um....so.... scientists don't claim that whales descended from any of the animals who's remains that have been found but are very likely to have descended from some other animals who's remains have not been found. Have I understood you correctly?


Yes. There is a chance that whales are descended directly from Pakicetus, but it's not something scientists claim.

Are you aware of any scientific studies confirming that any of the others animals who's remains have not been found ever reproduced?


Obviously there aren't any. There aren't any for the animals whose skeletons have been found.

That observation is being used to determine where the bones have been found and their degree of similarity was not questioned. Once those things have been observed the proposal is then being tested by interpretation. My question was, is this scientific? Can we say that it has been proven by science? I would contend not.
Being a lab has nothing to do with repetition. It may make the repetition easier to accomplish but it is not a requirement of it.
If it cannot be tested, so that it can be proven or disproven, then it is not science. Science requires testability.

View Post


Ok, glad you are focussing on testability rather than the lab aspect.

The difficulty here for evolution is that it will never be possible to demonstrate that an individual fossil left offspring which evolved into a different species. This is the real world situation. The evidence simply doesn't exist and will never exist to allow us to do this. We couldn't even gather this data on species that are living and reproducing now in wild conditions. That's why scientists don't claim individual fossils are ancestral to another species (with a few exceptions).

So is the assertion that Pakicetus is a transitional species between something else and whales testable?

In the sense that you mean it, I believe not - if you are looking for a direct chain of evidence that connects fossil A directly to whale B via every intermediate link in the chain.

However, a fossil must meet certain criteria to be proposed as a transitional. For example, the timeframe must be right. It must show a mixture of features of the classes of organism it is alleged to be transitional between. These are testable (ie could be falsified by further analysis of the fossils, or finding of more fossils) and the latter in particular is where paleontologists do most of the work in analysing 'transitionals'.

So it's clear that fossils exist, with features intermediate between other fossils.

Is the assertion that they evolved one into the other testable? No.

#162 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 03 August 2009 - 10:47 AM

There are claims made by creationism that can be tested just as there are claims made by evolution that can be tested. However, neither explanation as the origin of all life can be proven by the scientific method.

The big difference I see is:

Creationism:
(a) upfront and open about it's initial assumptions and bias
(:huh: claims that nothing that is testable and tested by science contradicts it.
© claims that many things that the scientific method has revealed about our world are supportive of it
(d) upfront and open when it is using interpetation of facts.
Look how creationists so exposes themselves to being falsified with (B). Thats pretty scientific for a bunch of so called anti-science religious nuts.

Evolutionism:
(a) tries to pretend that it has no initial assumptions or bias
(B) claims that science has completely proven evolution
© tries to make naturalistic explanations equal science regardless of whether it is testable by science or not, eg. Pakicetus as an ancestor to whales
(d) passes off it's interpretation of facts as facts
Look how evolutionists so protect themselves from being falsified with © and (d). Thats pretty religious for a bunch of so called anti-religious science nuts.

View Post


Ah see this is the point I found most interesting (actually all of it was interesting). Evolution doesn't claim knowledge of how life first formed. It just claims how lifeforms turned into the creatures we see today.

To go into the start of it all you would want to look into Abiogenesis (sp???) or even trans-spermia (sp???). Or it could be any other theory on how life began. Those issues are related, but separate from evolution.

#163 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 03 August 2009 - 11:11 AM

It just claims how lifeforms turned into the creatures we see today.

View Post

Yes it does but is it even plausible? Is it clear enough to contend for truth and does the evidence support it? Whatever "it" is.

We set the playing field wide open for you but the evidence is nowhere and the rhetoric is reigning.

This thread is not even looking to justify how life began. We want to see Darwin's assertion that an ancient wriggly protozoa can and has followed ordinary physical/chemical principles by means of natural selection to generate all the diversity we see in creatures today.

Beyond the anecdotes, ad hoc constraints, and simple assertions (oh, and don't forget all the evolutionists who look hither and yon for the slightest crack in reasoning, perceived or otherwise, to offer profound corrections. B) ) this thread has been a wash for 9 pages now with more creationists offering lineages, that could be plausible transitions, then the evolutionists. :huh:

Darwinian/neo-Darwinian evolution is anti-science. Plain and simple. It's only getting worse as time goes on and real science confirms scripture/creation. Naturalism's pseudoscience rejects it as a necessary presupposition. Is that scientific or reasonable or open minded?

#164 Javabean

Javabean

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 950 posts
  • Location:Harrisburg Pa
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Harrisburg

Posted 05 August 2009 - 11:50 PM

Yes it does but is it even plausible? Is it clear enough to contend for truth and does the evidence support it? Whatever "it" is.

We set the playing field wide open for you but the evidence is nowhere and the rhetoric is reigning.

This thread is not even looking to justify how life began. We want to see Darwin's assertion that an ancient wriggly protozoa can and has followed ordinary physical/chemical principles by means of natural selection to generate all the diversity we see in creatures today.

Beyond the anecdotes, ad hoc constraints, and simple assertions (oh, and don't forget all the evolutionists who look hither and yon for the slightest crack in reasoning, perceived or otherwise, to offer profound corrections. :) ) this thread has been a wash for 9 pages now with more creationists offering lineages, that could be plausible transitions, then the evolutionists. :)

Darwinian/neo-Darwinian evolution is anti-science. Plain and simple. It's only getting worse as time goes on and real science confirms scripture/creation. Naturalism's pseudoscience rejects it as a necessary presupposition. Is that scientific or reasonable or open minded?

View Post


Well I personally don't know enough about Evolution to start spouting off how one creature evolved from to another so wasn't about to just toss something out there. And yes I suppose I could have imagined what would work, such as a duck to a beaver to a platypus (this one involves mating across species) but I didn't see it as productive.

I will ask you this. You've made many claims about how Science proves the bible in Creation and all other things. So far I have not seen any evidence of this since I've been here. In fact Arch created a forum basically like this one, but only for Creationists to provide how Creationism is proved with science.

What were some of the complaints that he heard from Creationists, and possibly even you. "That's asking too much" "You are basically asking us to do all the work only so Evolutionists can dismiss all our work." These complaints are mirrored from the ones that you mocked Evolutionists for at the beginning of this forum.

So I'm really not surprised that this forum didn't turn out how you expected or hoped.

#165 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 August 2009 - 06:11 AM

I will ask you this.  You've made many claims about how Science proves the bible in Creation and all other things.  So far I have not seen any evidence of this since I've been here.  In fact Arch created a forum basically like this one, but only for Creationists to provide how Creationism is proved with science.

View Post

That's what this forum is for. You can take it or leave it.

What were some of the complaints that he heard from Creationists, and possibly even you.  "That's asking too much"  "You are basically asking us to do all the work only so Evolutionists can dismiss all our work."  These complaints are mirrored from the ones that you mocked Evolutionists for at the beginning of this forum.

View Post

I don't think this thread is too much. It demonstrates that the evolutionist takes some good observations and assumes that it verifies a huge evolutionary saga. When put to the test, you're left with a bunch of anecdotes. Nothing more. Evolution is made up story telling.

Atheists and Evolutionists call us crazy for claiming that an historical history book actually is confirmed by the data around us. Yet the evolutionist thinks history is created by the day dreams of a young lad in the belly of a ship called the Beagle. :lol:

#166 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 August 2009 - 07:08 AM

Well I personally don't know enough about Evolution to start spouting off how one creature evolved from to another so wasn't about to just toss something out there.

View Post

Yes, but is the option that one creature doesn't evolve in to another up for consideration? The idea that evolution is the only game in town and all data must fit evolutionary assumptions or something like it is not an invitation to follow the evidence where it leads but a limiting of the mind to rest all thinking into a single untestable paradigm.

You can put your faith in evolution if you please but I already have a faith. You tell me about your faith and I'll tell you about my faith.

#167 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 August 2009 - 09:17 AM

I will ask you this. You've made many claims about how Science proves the bible in Creation and all other things. So far I have not seen any evidence of this since I've been here.


Young Earth Age Correlations

There is a thread you can start with.When your done with that one we can give you 10 more.Obviously,you either have'nt been here very long or you have'nt been looking for any of the evidence.




Enjoy.

#168 Dr. Nancy Malik

Dr. Nancy Malik

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Location:Gurgaon, India
  • Age: 31
  • Hindu
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Gurgaon, India

Posted 01 November 2009 - 09:11 PM

Homeopathy, spoon bending, pyramid power, ghosts, these are all pseudo-science. 


According to a 1970 edition of Webster’s New World dictionary, the word comes from the Latin sciens, present participle of scire, to know. The dictionary says: 1. originally, knowledge. 2. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation. 3. a branch of knowledge, especially one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles and methods. 4. a). the systematized knowledge of nature. :P. any branch of this.

Homeopathy, for example, is a science because all knowledge pertaining to homeopathic medicines is derived from observation, study and experimentation

#169 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 November 2009 - 10:07 PM

According to a 1970 edition of Webster’s New World dictionary, the word comes from the Latin sciens, present participle of scire, to know. The dictionary says: 1. originally, knowledge. 2. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation. 3. a branch of knowledge, especially one concerned with establishing and systematizing facts, principles and methods. 4. a). the systematized knowledge of nature. B). any branch of this.

Homeopathy, for example, is a science because all knowledge pertaining to homeopathic medicines is derived from observation, study and experimentation

View Post


And a lot of modern medicines are based on compounds derived from plants and their fruits. Aspirin, for example, has the compounds of the white willow bark that were synthesised and aspirin was made from.

http://altmedicine.a...willow-bark.htm

#170 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 02 November 2009 - 08:26 AM

Not at all clear how you think any such exercise bears any relation to evolution.

The only 'natural' ordering is by descent, and this is not tied closely to morphology, except that children somewhat resemble their parents.

View Post

Wrong. Darwin used homologous morphology of finches, etc. to develop his theory of common descent.

#171 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 08:48 AM

morphological similarity is irrelevant to understanding evolution accept where it is geniune homology. The fact that the platypus looks somewhat like a duck is not indicative of its phylogeny. It is a classic case of convergant evolution. What is indicative of its phylogeny is its early mammalian physiology; (not least, laying eggs), a phylogeny now confirmed by genetics. First impressions mean nothing in evolution; thats why school children think dolphins are a kind of fish. They look like fish, to be fair.

#172 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 10:39 AM

To truly do what was asked would require the DNA of the lines of so many extinct species as to make this request bogus.

Yes, Darwin did use Morphology on Finch species that were alive and all confined to an Island. Using morphology for species that are separated by vast scales of time is useless.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users