Jump to content


Photo

Proving A Negative


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

#21 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 01 September 2016 - 08:05 AM

I may have sounded harsh before, if I offended anyone, I apologize.

 

What I meant to say is that, under the theory of evolution, each species must necessarily be a complete species during each of its stages of development.

 

Richard Dawkins explains it nicely here with a focus on the eye.:

 

Fjuri

This is a pathetic example of Dawkins trying to explain the complexity of the eye with a glibb simplistic description--a just so story if I've ever heard one. Where's the beef?

 

It would be much more impressive if Dawkins went into a laboratory and assembled all the correct ingredients and came up with an eyeball that someone could actually use to replace the ones in that head that are defective. I have warned before not to believe people who can't do what they describe.

 

Dawkins starts his explanation with light-sensitive cells. Where did  the light sensitive cells come from? Did you notice Dawkins telling his intelligent assistant to make the cup bigger? That's called intelligent design. Therefore, Dawkins is using intelligent design to explain evolution. Now I think that is outrageous. Why  not tell the cup to evolve?  lol



#22 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 01 September 2016 - 08:29 AM

Much more likely than only ever finding the end product. You ask the probability - so think about it, if we have a variety of seahorses today, and bats, and starfish and jellyfish, and in the fossils we have a variety of other things which by design are complete fliers, or complete swimmers, etc...if the fossils have no reason to hide evolution, they would reveal the many more transitional species, that exist in the thousands.

You're still basing this on the assumption that more species means more individuals to fossilize. You haven't supported that assumption and I don't think you can.

The idea of punctuated equilibrium is that most evolutionary change takes place in small populations where mutations can spread more easily, and that fossilization is most likely to occur in a larger (and more stable) population simply by virtue of the numbers involved. If that's what happened, it's not surprising that we'd see fossils of some species but not many from the line between them.

How can you even ask the question with a straight face? You are asking this; "If I put 500 redballs in a bag and 50 blue balls, if I select 25 balls what are the chances they would all be blue?" The chances are ZERO. ;)

You're the one bringing in the assumption that there are 500 red and 50 blue balls in the bag because you think that each blue ball implies 10 reds.

Also the chances aren't zero. You really need to stop confusing unlikely with impossible.

#23 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 September 2016 - 09:03 AM

 

Fjuri, take my word for it, we didn't evolve:) You have my solemn, peer-reviewed promise from the Lord! 

 

:P

The Lord is your peer?

 

I always thought God has no peers.  (Excepting, of course, for a discussion about His triune nature.)

 

 

If evolution happened there would be transitionals, which would be evidence of evolution, and you are saying that if the transitionals aren't there, that this doesn't falsify evolution.

You remind me of another creationist who suggested I provide just one "true" transitional.... and I would likely be given a Nobel Prize.  The problem is that, according to the experts in the field, there are MANY transitional fossils.  So, why would anyone even be considered for such a prestigious award when science already says there are hundreds of transitionals?

 

Do we have transitional fossils for each and every living creature?   No.

Should we expect to have transitional fossils for each and every living creature?  No.

Is it an issue that we can't fill in all the blanks for each and every species with transitionals?   No.

 

Back to the OP.....

One cannot prove a (logically) prove a negative such as: "There are no invisible pink unicorns on Mars."  This is because they could all be hiding from us or living in some place where we haven't looked.

 

On the other hand, it is a fairly simple to prove the positive...."There are invisible pink unicorns on Mars."  If it is true.



#24 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 September 2016 - 09:06 AM

I have warned before not to believe people who can't do what they describe.

Does that also apply to ID advocates who claim life and/or the universe were designed but can't design either one?



#25 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 September 2016 - 09:20 AM

Back to the OP.....

One cannot prove a (logically) prove a negative such as: "There are no invisible pink unicorns on Mars."  This is because they could all be hiding from us or living in some place where we haven't looked.

 

On the other hand, it is a fairly simple to prove the positive...."There are invisible pink unicorns on Mars."  If it is true.

Actually, proving the existence of invisible pink unicorns on Mars would be rather difficult. Its invisible and on Mars after all, those are pretty hard things to overcome.



#26 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 September 2016 - 10:50 AM

 

 

Fjuri: Yet Ostriches can't fly, they're incomplete flyers. If only they has stronger and bigger wings, they could rules the skies!

 

Not all birds are designed to fly. There are many peculiar creatures.

 

But the point is, we know that according to evolution-theory, there had to be theropods which could not fly, which evolved into birds which could (relevance), assuming you accept the cursorial theory of flight rather than the arboreal theory which some evolutionists might still argue. 

 

So we know that between a theropod and a bird, there MUST have been organisms that were not proficient fliers. Obviously a good example might be something like the fraudulent archaeoraptor. 

 

But the same could be said of ichthyosaurs, (homoplastic reptilian versions of dolphins), a progenitor of ichthyosaurs was a land-reptile, so had to be "less than" a fully designer swimmer.

 

Most interesting what Gould said about ichthyosaurs, given there was no exaptation possible from retrogressive limbs;

 

 

 

Gould: “This sea-going reptile with terrestrial ancestors converged so strongly on fishes that it actually evolved a dorsal fin and tail in just the right place and with just the right hydrological design. The evolution of these forms was all the more remarkable because they evolved from nothing—the ancestral terrestrial reptile had no hump on its back or blade on its tail to act as a precursor

 

One has to believe-by-faith, that basically a land-reptile magically designed itself a dorsal fin from scratch. This isn't "remarkable" it is fiction, come on,.....you must know that it just didn't happen. This statement is absurd beyond belief, it is like saying, "it is all the more remarkable that Mary can fly like a bird given she has no wings".  :rotfl3: 



#27 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 September 2016 - 10:56 AM

 

 

Piasan: You remind me of another creationist who suggested I provide just one "true" transitional.... and I would likely be given a Nobel Prize.  The problem is that, according to the experts in the field, there are MANY transitional fossils.  So, why would anyone even be considered for such a prestigious award when science already says there are hundreds of transitionals?

 

And your argument reminds me of the old canard, "we have the transitionals". The problem is, evolutionists can change their minds about transitionals. Ask Bonedigger, he will tell you mesonychids were THE ancestors of whales, nowadays the scientists will tell us it's the artiodactyls that are THE transitionals. Gingerich said Rhodocetus was a transitional link, with a fluke-tail. Later he said it had no fluke and he now admits it doesn't have the features of a sea-creature.

 

What does this prove? It proves the species they SELECT and call, "transitionals" can change like fashion does. Your transitionals are about as much proof as the proof that I was the murderer because I was in the same state at the time the crime was committed. :P

 

You also commit slothful induction fallacy by appealing to "hundreds" of transitionals when millions are missing. You've just argued that you are the richest person on earth because you can show hundreds of dollars in your account. Eerm....you need billions, like you do with transitionals. Where are they? They don't exist, because God made life, not evolution.

 

 

CMI: Over the years, only a tiny handful of ‘candidates’ claimed to be ‘transitional’ has been produced. These have usually been announced in a blaze of publicity to showcase evolution and indoctrinate everybody. However, when with time the weight of contrary evidence has indicated error, recantation (if any) has usually been whisper quiet, and the next generation of scientists promotes its own contenders.5

This article discusses some of the claimed transitional forms which evolutionists themselves have had to abandon through sheer weight of contrary evidence.

http://creation.com/...nsitional-forms

 

Obviously if transitionals, transition, why trust todays are, "the transitionals" when they may just transition into other species in the following decades like they did in the preceding decades?

 

Logical conlusion; they aren't transitionals, evolutionists just argue they are.


  • Blitzking likes this

#28 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 September 2016 - 10:57 AM

 

 

Mike Summers: This is a pathetic example of Dawkins trying to explain the complexity of the eye with a glibb simplistic description--a just so story if I've ever heard one

 

Notice the title on the video, "Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye". I have also made a video Mike, where I will demonstrate how Peter Pan can fly, because I am an expert in all of the information regarding the story of Peter Pan. ;)



#29 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 01 September 2016 - 11:25 AM

Piasan
 

Posted 01 September 2016 - 10:06 AM

Mike Summers, on 01 Sept 2016 - 10:05 AM, said:
I have warned before not to believe people who can't do what they describe.

Does that also apply to ID advocates who claim life and/or the universe were designed but can't design either one?

Yes it sure does. But I disagree that we as humans cannot design part of the universe Have you ever noticed the Eiffel Tower, the Golden gate Bridge, the world's largest dam in China? These are all things that were designed by intelligent beings that are now  a part of the universe. ID'ers brought them into existence from nothing--save raw matter.

So if we know by observable fact that intelligence can design things. We also have motion pictures of human being building things like dams and tall buildings. We can observe it happen. We have yet to observe evolution do anything. All we have is some claims that evolution happens--some "just so stories." Like I said where is the beef?

Show us some transitionals--some legs or arms transitioning into wings.

 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#30 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 02 September 2016 - 12:56 AM

Notice the title on the video, "Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of the eye". I have also made a video Mike, where I will demonstrate how Peter Pan can fly, because I am an expert in all of the information regarding the story of Peter Pan. ;)

The title of the video is unimportant. The content shows that transitional forms are complete at every stage.

 

I'm under the impression you've closed yourself off again. I'm not going to contribute further in this topic.



#31 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 September 2016 - 03:23 AM

Fjuri has abandoned the thread, he is upset because I am "closed off", in fact I know all about the eye-argument from Dawkins. This is Fjuri's problem, he always fall for his assumption that I don't understand evolution and haven't heard it's arguments before. He should remember that I have been on and off internet forums discussing these things since 2003, before he turns me into a rabbit. (in-joke with Mike) :D

 

​It's not that I am "closed" to the argument, it's just that I think what Mike said is right, we can basically imaginatively create a story of transitionals in place of actually providing them. Then you can make it about, "not understanding evolution", as a diversion from the fact the actual transitionals for eyes, don't exist.

 

:P



#32 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 02 September 2016 - 06:55 AM

Fjuri has abandoned the thread, he is upset because I am "closed off", in fact I know all about the eye-argument from Dawkins. This is Fjuri's problem, he always fall for his assumption that I don't understand evolution and haven't heard it's arguments before. He should remember that I have been on and off internet forums discussing these things since 2003, before he turns me into a rabbit. (in-joke with Mike) :D

 

​It's not that I am "closed" to the argument, it's just that I think what Mike said is right, we can basically imaginatively create a story of transitionals in place of actually providing them. Then you can make it about, "not understanding evolution", as a diversion from the fact the actual transitionals for eyes, don't exist.

 

:P

That's not at all what I nor Richard Dawkins said.

 

I'm not upset either. I'm just no longer contributing.



#33 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 02 September 2016 - 10:43 AM

Mike Summers, on 01 Sept 2016 - 5:05 PM, said:snapback.png

 

I have warned before not to believe people who can't do what they describe.

 

 

Does that also apply to ID advocates who claim life and/or the universe were designed but can't design either one?

 

That Question and its implications are a support for the Creationist position. We straight-forwardly say that human (or physical) means are insufficient to produce the universe or the present biological world, let alone the initial one of which we still find fossils. 

 

It's similar to the critique of Christians:"You do not live the perfect life preached by your prophets, the bible and Jesus" - Well, Christians also know what the reason for that is: Sin. So the critique goes only half the way.  


  • Mike Summers likes this

#34 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 September 2016 - 12:21 PM

Fjuri,
 

mike the wiz, on 02 Sept 2016 - 05:23 AM, said:

Fjuri has abandoned the thread, he is upset because I am "closed off", in fact I know all about the eye-argument from Dawkins. This is Fjuri's problem, he always fall for his assumption that I don't understand evolution and haven't heard it's arguments before. He should remember that I have been on and off internet forums discussing these things since 2003, before he turns me into a rabbit. (in-joke with Mike) :D

​It's not that I am "closed" to the argument, it's just that I think what Mike said is right, we can basically imaginatively create a story of transitionals in place of actually providing them. Then you can make it about, "not understanding evolution", as a diversion from the fact the actual transitionals for eyes, don't exist.
:P

That's not at all what I nor Richard Dawkins said.

I'm not upset either. I'm just no longer contributing.

Look Fjuri,
what part of "no" don't don't you understand? Humans are supernatural beings that use intelligence to create things. Evolution is foreign to us. We can't use it to do anything.

Once upon a time you admitted that you used creativity to do engineering. Now you're getting a doctorate in statistics? Surely you must realize the advantages of intelligence which you seem to possess a great deal of? Why would you support an idea (evolution) that insults your intelligence?

You say you get dumber when you talk to me. You can't even talk to evolution and yet you seem to think it's brilliant. It can do this. It can do that. Baloney!



#35 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 03 September 2016 - 11:06 PM

Having thought about the recent question in the other thread where the poster, River Jordan, complained we can't change science as creationists or offer proof against evolution, I was going to give my arguments against evolution but I think an interesting side-issue is the discussion about proving negatives.

 

For my example, I would give a reasonable falsification of the positive, as being negative evidence falsified by the tollens. But beyond that it is impossible to prove the negative it seems.

 

So what am I getting at? Well, imagine as an analogy, a claim that one thousand dolphins had washed ashore on a beach, was claimed. If we got to the beach ten minutes later and there was 5 dolphins, that would mean that according to logical rules, 9,995 pieces of negative, invisible evidence, would falsify the claim.

 

But what do we say if someone objects and says, "but it still could somehow be true, there could have been 100 lorries waiting to take them away and the waves of the sea have washed away the marks left on the beach."

 

An absurd post-hoc extra hypothesis, invented to wriggle out of falsification. It's even worse if such excuses are made about things in the past, because we can't verify or falsify those claims, for example in the present, someone might have witnessed the 100 lorries or they might be caught on CCTV, or whatever.

 

But the fact some idiot can argue such a thing means that technically, how can we disprove a claim?

 

Is it not the same with evolution? The only thing we can reasonably provide as evidence it didn't happen is to show it didn't happen which would mean that the evidence to falsify evolution would be invisible evidence, like with the dolphins.

 

99.999999% of the transitionals, like those 9,995 dolphins, are conspicuously missing. (invisible evidence, but nevertheless falsification evidence, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence where the evidence is expected to certainly exist).

 

Question; how can we disprove evolution if evolutionists won't allow us to?

 

They are free to create imaginative, "escapes", so that they can forever argue that somehow evolution happened. But logically, the modus tollens rule means evolution is reasonably falsified;

 

- If evolution is true, it is unavoidable that the majority of the transitionals would be found in the fossils.

- The majority of transitionals are NOT found in the fossils, therefore evolution is false.

 

(CORRECT; modus tollens.)

 

(The objection that they have found a comparatively small handful of transitionals, related to the full percentage, is slothful induction fallacy.) The ad-hoc excuses as to why the fossils purposefully hide evolution but deliberately show the creatures that have always existed (real lifeforms) is quite silly. If the fossils are a history of time and the evolution of modern forms, it would show it. Instead it only shows factual life forms, not fictional ones.

 

EXAMPLE: a turtle or a bat or a jellyfish or a starfish, can be found fossilized, but the fictional things that would have evolved into turtles, bats, jellyfish and starfish, are conspicuously absent. But why would the fossils hide the fictional forms and only reveal the true forms, unless only the true forms exist, and the fictional transitional forms are fiction.

 

Good points all... Ant THAT is why Abiogenesis / Darwinism is NOT falsifiable!!

I mean, how is it possible to falsify a science fiction novel that supposedly took place 100s of millions of years in the past,,, Talk about "Long ago and Far Away" LOL.. Who on Earth could EVER prove it wrong??  If evidence is provided that shows Abiodarwinism to be False (And there has been 100s of examples of just such evidence over the last 100 years) The Science fiction writers (Atheist Community) simply get together and rewrite the script any way they need to by inserting wishful speculation, hopeful assumptions or Ad hoc Rescue hypothesis and the story continues...

 

That is why the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth is NOT part of science, Never was, Never will be, it is ONLY about making Atheists feel good about themselves (As Darwinian Guru Richard Dawkins so succinctly put it.... "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

 

We need to invent a new field of study that describes the Darwinian myth so it sounds "Intellectually fulfilling" while not hurting their feelings..  Here are some options..

 

The Latin word "Science" (what we KNOW or What is KNOWN) does NOT apply unless the Empirical Scientific Method is utilized  (Indeed, that is WHY it was established in the first place.. in order to prevent people like Al Gore from make a killing off of other people's Fear and Ignorance... AKA Snake Oil Salesmen!!!

 

Since Darwinism FAILS the Empirical Scientific Method, how about using one of the following Latin phrases to describe more accurately what Darwinists are doing... hint... It AINT Science!!

 

QUALIS COGITARE  (What is Thought)

 

QUOD EST SPERATUS   (What is Hoped for)

 

QUOD EST OPTATUS (What is Wished for)

 

There.... That's better!!



#36 nandoschicken

nandoschicken

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cambridge, UK

Posted 16 September 2016 - 05:03 AM

Having thought about the recent question in the other thread where the poster, River Jordan, complained we can't change science as creationists or offer proof against evolution, I was going to give my arguments against evolution but I think an interesting side-issue is the discussion about proving negatives.

 

For my example, I would give a reasonable falsification of the positive, as being negative evidence falsified by the tollens. But beyond that it is impossible to prove the negative it seems.

 

So what am I getting at? Well, imagine as an analogy, a claim that one thousand dolphins had washed ashore on a beach, was claimed. If we got to the beach ten minutes later and there was 5 dolphins, that would mean that according to logical rules, 9,995 pieces of negative, invisible evidence, would falsify the claim.

 

But what do we say if someone objects and says, "but it still could somehow be true, there could have been 100 lorries waiting to take them away and the waves of the sea have washed away the marks left on the beach."

 

An absurd post-hoc extra hypothesis, invented to wriggle out of falsification. It's even worse if such excuses are made about things in the past, because we can't verify or falsify those claims, for example in the present, someone might have witnessed the 100 lorries or they might be caught on CCTV, or whatever.

 

But the fact some idiot can argue such a thing means that technically, how can we disprove a claim?

 

Is it not the same with evolution? The only thing we can reasonably provide as evidence it didn't happen is to show it didn't happen which would mean that the evidence to falsify evolution would be invisible evidence, like with the dolphins.

 

99.999999% of the transitionals, like those 9,995 dolphins, are conspicuously missing. (invisible evidence, but nevertheless falsification evidence, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence where the evidence is expected to certainly exist).

 

Question; how can we disprove evolution if evolutionists won't allow us to?

 

They are free to create imaginative, "escapes", so that they can forever argue that somehow evolution happened. But logically, the modus tollens rule means evolution is reasonably falsified;

 

- If evolution is true, it is unavoidable that the majority of the transitionals would be found in the fossils.

- The majority of transitionals are NOT found in the fossils, therefore evolution is false.

 

(CORRECT; modus tollens.)

 

(The objection that they have found a comparatively small handful of transitionals, related to the full percentage, is slothful induction fallacy.) The ad-hoc excuses as to why the fossils purposefully hide evolution but deliberately show the creatures that have always existed (real lifeforms) is quite silly. If the fossils are a history of time and the evolution of modern forms, it would show it. Instead it only shows factual life forms, not fictional ones.

 

EXAMPLE: a turtle or a bat or a jellyfish or a starfish, can be found fossilized, but the fictional things that would have evolved into turtles, bats, jellyfish and starfish, are conspicuously absent. But why would the fossils hide the fictional forms and only reveal the true forms, unless only the true forms exist, and the fictional transitional forms are fiction.

 

 

We are not going to have a complete transitional record of every living species on earth. The ones we have you dispute or deny. Its always "we need more" and "fill this next gap".

 

Mike - YEC existed and was held to be true before any discovery of science at all. I can't take your apparent lack of introspection/honesty seriously.



#37 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 17 September 2016 - 05:38 AM

So what am I getting at? Well, imagine as an analogy, a claim that one thousand dolphins had washed ashore on a beach, was claimed. If we got to the beach ten minutes later and there was 5 dolphins, that would mean that according to logical rules, 9,995 pieces of negative, invisible evidence, would falsify the claim.
 
But what do we say if someone objects and says, "but it still could somehow be true, there could have been 100 lorries waiting to take them away and the waves of the sea have washed away the marks left on the beach."
 
An absurd post-hoc extra hypothesis, invented to wriggle out of falsification. 

Well, Mike the Wiz, your analogy fails.
Because real evolutionary scientists, not the imaginary ones you portray, do actively research evidence to test the ToE.
What do you think that paleontologists do, when they dig up fossils? look for evidence or hiding a lack of evidence?
What do you think people like Richard Lenski (the Lenski experiment)?
What was the purpose of the Miller-Urey experiment? Hide a lack of evidence or discover evidence for the theory?

You OP is one big fail, because in the real world exactly the opposite happens of what you describe.

#38 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 17 September 2016 - 07:05 AM

- If evolution is true, it is unavoidable that the majority of the transitionals would be found in the fossils.

All the transitional fossils found have been found in the fossil records.   :think:



#39 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 September 2016 - 10:22 PM

Well, Mike the Wiz, your analogy fails.
Because real evolutionary scientists, not the imaginary ones you portray, do actively research evidence to test the ToE.
What do you think that paleontologists do, when they dig up fossils? look for evidence or hiding a lack of evidence?
What do you think people like Richard Lenski (the Lenski experiment)?
What was the purpose of the Miller-Urey experiment? Hide a lack of evidence or discover evidence for the theory?

You OP is one big fail, because in the real world exactly the opposite happens of what you describe.

 

"What do you think that paleontologists do, when they dig up fossils? look for evidence or hiding a lack of evidence?"

 

Many times they actually come out and tell the public the TRUTH about the fossil record.. Like Prominent Evolutionary Paleontologists Colin Patterson and Steven Gould have done.. Or do you think that you know more than THEY did about the fossil record...  Surely even YOU are not that Arrogant.. :gilligan:

 

Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?…Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” 

 

 

One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way.  One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.  That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long.  Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory.  Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

Question in: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?  I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.  I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.’  Prominent Evolutionary Paleontologists Colin Patterson

 

Stephen J. Gould, Harvard , "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College,

 

Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." Nature, Vol.377,  "Since the so called Cambrian Explosion... no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record."


  • mike the wiz likes this

#40 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 20 September 2016 - 06:26 AM

"What do you think that paleontologists do, when they dig up fossils? look for evidence or hiding a lack of evidence?"

 

Many times they actually come out and tell the public the TRUTH about the fossil record.. Like Prominent Evolutionary Paleontologists Colin Patterson and Steven Gould have done.. Or do you think that you know more than THEY did about the fossil record...  Surely even YOU are not that Arrogant.. :gilligan:

I certainly have access to more recent information than the late Gould.

 

What do you think that paleontologists do, when they dig up fossils? look for evidence or hiding a lack of evidence?
What do you think people like Richard Lenski (the Lenski experiment)?
What was the purpose of the Miller-Urey experiment? Hide a lack of evidence or discover evidence for the theory?

 

What was the purpose of the "rugged fitness landscape" experiment?

 

But byou didn't answer the questions: 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users