Jump to content


Photo

29+ Evidences For Macroevolution - Updated


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
25 replies to this topic

#1 Mimsy Borogrove

Mimsy Borogrove

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • London

Posted 13 November 2011 - 05:38 PM

Sept. 30, 2011. Douglas Theobald has updated his 29+ Evidences. http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/

This is, of course, a discussion of evolutionary theory as opposed to 'Darwinism'.



<admin note> This thread was intended by the above to be nothing more than an advertisement for talkorigins. And, as per the forum rules, this person was exposed as an evo-babler Posted Image

See: http://www.evolution..._alert_page.htm for further information.

#2 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 13 November 2011 - 05:52 PM

Fantastic! I liked this part:

"Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions".

Darwin's pangenesis hypothesis was falsified by Mendel's law of heredity and his ideas about gradualism were falsified by abrupt appearance and stasis. Any more predictions? :P


Then we go to this:


"The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life".


No matter how many times it's falsified, twisted to fit new data, can't reconcile mutation rates, can't reconcile empirical dating methods, rejects fossils that don't fit the model, and have to call any other model religious to maintain it's standing "It must be evolution".


Enjoy.

#3 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 13 November 2011 - 05:57 PM

Sept. 30, 2011. Douglas Theobald has updated his 29+ Evidences. http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/


I do not see any large scale mega evolutionary changes on that list. Douglas Theobald has obviously invented his own definition of what macroevolution is and isnt.

Also I wouldn't trust talk.origins, not a neutral website. The website reviewed one of my favourite books from a well qualified author, yet the reviewer admitted he does not have the book on him and had only "flicked through it" years ago and called the author of the book a "crackpot", and then attacked the authors qualifications and lied about what is in the book. How can an honest website review a book that they have not even read, and then personally attack the author of that book with all kinds of horrible names and make lies up? Not a trustworthy website in my opinion.

#4 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 13 November 2011 - 06:04 PM

I do not see any large scale mega evolutionary changes on that list. Douglas Theobald has obviously invented his own definition of what macroevolution is and isnt.

Also I wouldn't trust talk.origins, not a neutral website. The website reviewed one of my favourite books from a well qualified author, yet the reviewer admitted he does not have the book on him and had only "flicked through it" years ago and called the author of the book a "crackpot", and then attacked the authors qualifications and lied about what is in the book. How can an honest website review a book that they have not even read, and then personally attack the author of that book with all kinds of horrible names and make lies up? Not a trustworthy website in my opinion.

Can you name that book and also post his comments.I like solid evidence that talkorigins is biased. I have a friend that loves that site and i want ammo to show him why i agree with you

#5 Mimsy Borogrove

Mimsy Borogrove

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • London

Posted 13 November 2011 - 06:11 PM

So what can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life?

And shadow, I'm really impressed. You must be a really fast reader!

#6 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 13 November 2011 - 06:20 PM

So what can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life?

And shadow, I'm really impressed. You must be a really fast reader!

If you want your question better answered you may want to go into some specifics.

#7 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 13 November 2011 - 06:33 PM

So what can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life?

And shadow, I'm really impressed. You must be a really fast reader!


Let's see. Is there any other competing model that also makes predictions? What would that be?

Creation predicts that an empirical age can be established for the earths oldest basement rocks that fit the biblical timeline.

http://www.evolution...findpost&p=2446

Creation predicts that an empirical age (through mutation rates) for the latest human bottleneck will fit the biblical timeline.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=52826

Creation predicts that fossils can be dated to the biblical timeline by containing soft tissue, proteins, DNA, and carbon.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=11197

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=71994


I find it odd that creation is subject to empirical testing and evolution is just a hypothetical that has to always change after it's proven wrong. Hmmmm?



Enjoy.

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 November 2011 - 06:41 PM

Sept. 30, 2011. Douglas Theobald has updated his 29+ Evidences. http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/

This is, of course, a discussion of evolutionary theory as opposed to 'Darwinism'.


See this page:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/forum_rules.htm

And this page:
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/guestbook_data/evobabble_alert_page.htm

#9 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 13 November 2011 - 06:50 PM

Its because they dont want to know the truth.If they did then they would at least hear the counter arguments.

#10 Mimsy Borogrove

Mimsy Borogrove

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • London

Posted 13 November 2011 - 09:29 PM

I do not see any large scale mega evolutionary changes on that list. Douglas Theobald has obviously invented his own definition of what macroevolution is and isnt.

Also I wouldn't trust talk.origins, not a neutral website. The website reviewed one of my favourite books from a well qualified author, yet the reviewer admitted he does not have the book on him and had only "flicked through it" years ago and called the author of the book a "crackpot", and then attacked the authors qualifications and lied about what is in the book. How can an honest website review a book that they have not even read, and then personally attack the author of that book with all kinds of horrible names and make lies up? Not a trustworthy website in my opinion.

Yeah. I read a lie somebody had made about something or other once. I never trust anything in print now.

#11 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 13 November 2011 - 09:35 PM

This is, of course, a discussion of evolutionary theory as opposed to 'Darwinism'.



No it isn't. The author of that list is a devout follower of neo-Darwinism aka the modern evolutionary synthesis, nothing non-Darwinian to be found on that list, all it is, is the same old material about natural selection and mutation recyled over and over into new vocabulary.

#12 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 13 November 2011 - 09:41 PM

So what can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life?


No scientific theory can account for this.

#13 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 13 November 2011 - 09:56 PM

Can you name that book and also post his comments.I like solid evidence that talkorigins is biased. I have a friend that loves that site and i want ammo to show him why i agree with you


I will private message you it. Theres many other examples aswell. For example a guy found an ancient skull in coal, yet talk.origins claims the skull was actually a rock, (even though the artifact was DNA checked and confirmed to be a human skull). Other examples include the case of Colin Patterson, an evolutionist who said one day he woke up and realised theres actually no evidence for evolution, talk.origins denies the quote, even though patterson admitted it.

See here to why talk.origins is dishonest, just one example of many:



#14 Mimsy Borogrove

Mimsy Borogrove

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • London

Posted 13 November 2011 - 10:29 PM

Is Evolution Fairytale a spoof site?

#15 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 13 November 2011 - 10:49 PM

Is Evolution Fairytale a spoof site?


Close your eyes to the evidence you do not want to see, then spout out insults, when will you militant Darwinists get a sense of individuality? I have seen this too many times!

#16 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 14 November 2011 - 04:29 AM

sad, I do want the pm on that. I for the life cant understand why some darwinists dont want the truth out there. If they are in search of the truth that is. I believe that many of them dont want to know the real truth of the matter.

#17 Mimsy Borogrove

Mimsy Borogrove

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • London

Posted 14 November 2011 - 04:31 AM

Close your eyes to the evidence you do not want to see, then spout out insults, when will you militant Darwinists get a sense of individuality? I have seen this too many times!

OK, I'll take your word for it, but if I find out you've all been having me on, I'll be very cross. It's not a nice thing to do, to waste people's time.

#18 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 14 November 2011 - 08:44 AM

Is Evolution Fairytale a spoof site?


No. But talkorigins is. It's the only place that Kevin Henke could intentionally misrepresent Humphrey's helium diffusivity model and get away with it without having to submit to peer review first.

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=35850

"The upshot is that here Henke is playing the ancient merchant’s trick of “bait and switch”. Having lured the customer in with an implied promise about one item (helium, zircon, dry), he then tries to sell the customer an item (argon, mica, wet) which will cost him more and benefit him less. I hope you won't buy Henke's merchandise!"

If Henke didn't want to give Humphrey's model credible exposure as he claims, then why did he post a 25 page rant at talkorigins. The above quote is proof of his motivation. It could never pass the peer review process because the only thing wrong is him trying to "Bait and Switch".


If anybody can post intentionally false information, then it isn't a scientific site that I would trust. Even AIG and other creationists organizations peer review articles before publication in their archives. Anybody with an axe to grind against religion (Namely YEC) is not only welcome there, but highly encouraged.


Enjoy.

#19 Mimsy Borogrove

Mimsy Borogrove

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • London

Posted 14 November 2011 - 09:03 AM

From what I've seen of Aggie, feedback is seriously hacked about and misrepresented. I wonder why they don't have their own forum with neutral or balanced moderation?

No criticisms of Theobald, then?

Have fun.

#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 14 November 2011 - 09:22 AM

Is Evolution Fairytale a spoof site?


I fail to see how this has any relation to the OP... Sad since this it was YOUR OP.... Is it that you wish to divert the conversation away from its intended purpose since you weren't counting on getting replies that debunk your original OP..




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users