Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is evolution so controversial?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 241 of 969 (724350)
04-16-2014 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by NoNukes
04-15-2014 12:28 PM


a proper falsification test vs an undoable test
I think a valid objection to the cow test is that it is not something that MUST occur if the ToE is false.
You are making the logical error that I believe Faith actually avoided, although perhaps not clearly so.
What you are describing is not falsification of TOE. What you are describing is how we might find evidence or the lack thereof of some other theory.
Curiously I don't see how you get that from specifying something that MUST be true if ToE is false.
The trouble I have with the Precambrian Cow (or an Ordovician Aardvark) is that it is not a test you can specifically go out and do, it is something that could (if the ToE were false) just turn up on its own.
Another would be trait transfer from one branch to another -- Otters with Octopus eyes for example.
This is arm-chair ad hoc thinking ...
I think Faith is saying that the cow test is an insincere offering by pro-evolutioners. ...
And I agree. It is more like a flippant off-the-cuff statement than a ruggedly developed and scientifically structured test, and if this is the only test of the theory it seems rather naive to me to claim it is a true test that will result in the invalidation of the theory.
One instance of a fossil out of sequence would not question the whole vast array of fossils that are in sequence: it would be an unexplained anomaly leaving the ToE as 99.9% accurate to date, rather than 100.0% accurate to date. I hardly call that falsification. Science would shrug and carry on. Anomalies exist for other theories used in science.
A true scientific skeptic, imho, will look for a test that can be actively pursued and run to test their theory. A normal process is to develop an anti-theory and use it to make predictions, and then test those predictions.
For an interesting discussion (yes I know but) see http://www.conservapedia.com/...:Falsifiability_of_Evolution
quote:
Many people assume the "Theory of Evolution" is a single theory. It is not. Rather, it is a collection of 1,000,000+ theories, papers, experiments, observations and tests, all of which contribute to the overall theory of evolution". ...
A common false assumption made is that disproving one of the underlying theories, invalidates the entire theory of evolution. ... . An error in a single theory does not disprove the larger body of knowledge. Falsifying the "Theory of Evolution" would require disproving thousands of supporting theories.PerpetualAngst 16:23, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
Now I don't agree with PerpetualAngst that there are millions of theories rolled into the ToE, it seems to me that this is conflating the ToE with the science of evolution (see comments in the link re falsifying physics), and that there are a number of processes involved that affect the evolution of organisms.
PerpetualAngst also references ://29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 "for a much more detailed argument in favor of common descent" and it has this:
quote:
Potential Falsification:
Thousands of new species are discovered yearly, and new DNA and protein sequences are determined daily from previously unexamined species (Wilson 1992, Ch. 8). At the current rate, which is increasing exponentially, nearly 30,000 new sequences are deposited at GenBank every day, amounting to over 38 million new bases sequenced every day. Each and every one is a test of the theory of common descent. When I first wrote these words in 1999, the rate was less than one tenth what it is today (in 2006), and we now have 20 times the amount of DNA sequenced.
Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the "standard genetic code" or a close derivative thereof. For example, according to the theory, none of the thousands of new and previously unknown insects that are constantly being discovered in the Brazilian rainforest will have non-nucleic acid genomes. Nor will these yet undiscovered species of insects have genetic codes which are not close derivatives of the standard genetic code. In the absence of the theory of common descent, it is quite possible that every species could have a very different genetic code, specific to it only, since there are 1.4 x 10^70 informationally equivalent genetic codes, all of which use the same codons and amino acids as the standard genetic code (Yockey 1992). This possibility could be extremely useful for organisms, as it would preclude interspecific viral infections. However, this has not been observed, and the theory of common descent effectively prohibits such an observation.
As another example, nine new lemur and two marmoset species (all primates) were discovered in the forests of Madagascar and Brazil in 2000 (Groves 2000; Rasoloarison et al. 2000; Thalmann and Geissmann 2000). Ten new monkey species have been discovered in Brazil alone since 1990 (Van Roosmalen et al. 2000). Nothing in biology prevents these various species from having a hitherto unknown genetic material or a previously unused genetic codenothing, that is, except for the theory of common descent. However, we now know definitively that the new lemurs use DNA with the standard genetic code (Yoder et al. 2000); the marmosets have yet to be tested.
Furthermore, each species could use a different polymer for catalysis. The polymers that are used could still be chemically identical yet have different chiralities in different species. There are thousands of thermodynamically equivalent glycolysis pathways (even using the same ten reaction steps but in different orders), so it is possible that every species could have its own specific glycolysis pathway, tailored to its own unique needs. The same reasoning applies to other core metabolic pathways, such as the citric acid cycle and oxidative phosphorylation.
Finally, many molecules besides ATP could serve equally well as the common currency for energy in various species (CTP, TTP, UTP, ITP, or any ATP-like molecule with one of the 293 known amino acids or one of the dozens of other bases replacing the adenosine moiety immediately come to mind). Discovering any new animals or plants that contained any of the anomalous examples proffered above would be potential falsifications of common ancestry, but they have not been found.
Note predictions of what we should see if the theory is true and what we should not see - things that would occur if the theory were false.
The article also goes on to discuss nested hierarchies and the difference between cladograms of cars and cladograms of organisms (an issue Cedre brought up).
These are much more doable, stronger, falsification tests imho.
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : superscript 70

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by NoNukes, posted 04-15-2014 12:28 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 04-16-2014 11:43 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 244 by NoNukes, posted 04-16-2014 1:31 PM RAZD has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 242 of 969 (724352)
04-16-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by RAZD
04-16-2014 11:21 AM


Re: a proper falsification test vs an undoable test
RAZD writes:
The trouble I have with the Precambrian Cow (or an Ordovician Aardvark) is that it is not a test you can specifically go out and do, it is something that could (if the ToE were false) just turn up on its own.
Dr A addressed this several times. If a theory is true, there is no potential falsification that you could go out there and actually do.
Neil Shubin looked all around the world for the most likely place where a tetrapod transitional might turn up. He went there and found one, producing yet another validation of evolution.
Creationists could look all around the world for the most likely place to turn up a fossil that doesn't fit the theory of evolution. They don't bother because they know in their hearts they'll never find one.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2014 11:21 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by JonF, posted 04-16-2014 12:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2014 1:48 PM Percy has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 243 of 969 (724360)
04-16-2014 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
04-16-2014 11:43 AM


Re: a proper falsification test vs an undoable test
You could always form a Cambrian Cow Consortium (CCC) and go looking. And you'd either find a CC or continue indefinitely. IMHO scientific tests are not necessarily finite time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 04-16-2014 11:43 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 969 (724364)
04-16-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by RAZD
04-16-2014 11:21 AM


Re: a proper falsification test vs an undoable test
The trouble I have with the Precambrian Cow (or an Ordovician Aardvark) is that it is not a test you can specifically go out and do, it is something that could (if the ToE were false) just turn up on its own.
You could go on a fossil hunt, but let's say that you are unable to do that? So what? The question of falsification is not about what you personally can do, it is about what is possible and what has or has not been found.
and if this is the only test of the theory it seems rather naive to me to claim it is a true test that will result in the invalidation of the theory.
Except that it is not the only test. The answer is deliberately flip. Anyone, even a disbeliever, who if familiar with the science ought to be able to come up with their own falsification. But someone ranting about the TOE being just mind games is not that person. I would not spend 2 minutes trying to explain a scientific topic to Faith. You do seem to have that kind of patience, but I doubt you can get any better results.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2014 11:21 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2014 4:43 PM NoNukes has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 245 of 969 (724365)
04-16-2014 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Percy
04-16-2014 11:43 AM


Re: a proper falsification test vs an undoable test
Dr A addressed this several times. If a theory is true, there is no potential falsification that you could go out there and actually do.
And I expect that Faith and a number of others will say that this just shows that evolution is unfalsifiable.
Creationists could look all around the world for the most likely place to turn up a fossil that doesn't fit the theory of evolution. They don't bother because they know in their hearts they'll never find one.
Or they just think it is not a reasonable test. One anomaly does not invalidate a theory ...
Falsifiability - Wikipedia
quote:
Although the logic of nave falsification is valid, it is rather limited. Nearly any statement can be made to fit the data, so long as one makes the requisite 'compensatory adjustments'. Popper drew attention to these limitations in The Logic of Scientific Discovery in response to criticism from Pierre Duhem. W. V. Quine expounded this argument in detail, calling it confirmation holism. To logically falsify a universal, one must find a true falsifying singular statement. But Popper pointed out that it is always possible to change the universal statement or the existential statement so that falsification does not occur. On hearing that a black swan has been observed in Australia, one might introduce the ad hoc hypothesis, 'all swans are white except those found in Australia'; or one might adopt another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'.
There was an anomaly in Newton's Law (Theory) of Gravity with the orbit of Mercury, this was resolved with Relativity (while his law remained accurate enough to land objects on Mars), and then there is the anomaly in Relativity that turns up with the rotation rate of galaxies ... and we have the ad hoc addition of dark stuffs ...
Anomalies alone are not sufficient to invalidate theories.
Curiously, imho, the attitude that this Precambrian Cow type of test is a "good" falsification test of evolution smacks of self-satisfaction, confirmation bias and hubris, rather than a hard skeptical scientific developed rugged test.
The test for differences in the DNA molecules and amino acids is to my mind much much more directly linked to falsificationability for the ToE: life has been very picky about what molecules are used and there are many more to choose from: any of the amino acids etc listed (see Message 241 near end) cropping up would be stronger evidence against the ToE AND are realistic to look for:
quote:
... In the absence of the theory of common descent, it is quite possible that every species could have a very different genetic code, specific to it only, since there are 1.4 x 10^70 informationally equivalent genetic codes, all of which use the same codons and amino acids as the standard genetic code (Yockey 1992). ...
Finally, many molecules besides ATP could serve equally well as the common currency for energy in various species (CTP, TTP, UTP, ITP, or any ATP-like molecule with one of the 293 known amino acids or one of the dozens of other bases replacing the adenosine moiety immediately come to mind). ...
When we look at the experiments on self-replicating molecules we see that a number of rather different systems can result in successful self-replication, and logically any one of those could have formed a basis for the origin of life: without common descent and nested hierarchies there is no reason that any one of these other molecules could be involved.
Fossils aren't always preserved, but chemical irregularities should be much easier to search for, so I find those tests to be much more realistic, more multilevel, and much more doable, than finding the mad cow that buries itself in the precambrian pasture.
If evolution is not true what MUST we see? Something different in the DNA and amino acids used in different organisms -- different bases, different energy transport, something other than the highly selective system we see (one in 1.4 x 10^70 leaves a lot of room for a second or third code system).

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 04-16-2014 11:43 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-16-2014 3:07 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 296 by Percy, posted 04-17-2014 9:04 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 246 of 969 (724368)
04-16-2014 2:58 PM


You can't disprove a construction built out of hot air
NN thinks I misunderstood the cow example, I did not, he misunderstood me. And you also apparently missed how I know AZ despises me.
\Percy says I didn't see something he wrote, that is possible, so a mammal in the Ordovician would do. I don't really care, I was basically aping what you all say about a rabbit or cow in the Precambrian anyway, following what I thought was YOUR lead.
As for reading scientific journals, let me know when it becomes a rule for participants here to be scientists. As long as it's not a requirement and nonscientists are allowed I want to register my complaint about how the public is mistreated by the scientific community concerning evolution, nothing but interpretation and mystification, incomprehensible and unanswerable mental castlebuilding, abuse of the public.
Again, microevolution supports the creation of separate Kinds, and microevolution is observed and observable, macroevolution is not, it's pure fantasy.
Pressie wants me to look at bores from bore holes. I'm sure one can see lots of layers of different kinds of rock and fossils and so on. What one can NOT see is time periods despite his insistence that that is so. He doesn't seem to know the difference between observation and interpretation, but then that's what all this OE and Evo stuff does to a person.
Perhaps if I had another lifetime to put to the task I'd give some attention to the supposed upward changes in fossilized flora and fauna within the rock that are taken as examples of evolutionary change over time, I mean such facts as what I reported is described for the Devonian at Wikipedia, a certain kind of plant at the bottom of the rock being considered to be the evolutionary precursor to a different kind of plant higher in the rock and so on. The idea that there is a time succession is pure fantasy. It fits some sort of order you all have in your minds, but again it IS all in your minds, all this is purely mental stuff without actual reality. You have NO idea how a "vascular" plant became a "seed bearing" plant, you simply believe that's what happened and you insist all the rest of us believe it, and you get away with it for most of credulous humanity. Utter fraudulent nonsense. So anyway that's one place I'd go to prove the ToE false. Knowing it's a lost cause, again, because it IS all nothing but a mental construct and you can't fight a mental construct that is shared by a whole scientific community, it can be rationalized ad infinitum. THERE's the real unfalsifiability of the ToE.
And I really did like my pondering of the Kaibab Plateau back there too, something of course I've brought up before but this time from a slightly different angle. If you watch one of those flyover videos of the Grand Canyon one thing you might notice is that plateau that the canyon cuts through. Although it does vary in elevation somewhat, certainly the north rim of the canyon being higher than the south at least, overall it still retains the look of its original horizontality as one of those layers you can see exposed in the GC. It's a very large flat expanse of limestone that stretches for thousands of square miles in all directions but mostly north-south, and you can see its thickness in the walls of the canyon as the video flies over it.
Originally there was a stack of layers above that layer, which you can see on diagrams of the Grand Staircase to the north, and a butte that remains to the south of the Grand Canyon, ten or more layers to another mile or so of depth over that same vast expanse. That's a LOT of material that got eroded away to leave that fairly flat surface of the Kaibab Plateau.
It strikes me as humorous that the Kaibab limestone represents a TIME PERIOD, the PERMIAN time period. How did all the time periods below it stay parallel and those above it get washed away on OE geo theory? I'm curious because I can't think of a normal geological method that would accomplish that denuding of the layer of limestone, and I wonder if it's ever even been addressed somewhere. Looks to me like anywhere you bored through it you'd discover all the same layers that we see in the Grand Canyon to a great distance north and south, all remaining continuous and parallel with the Kaibab while the upper layers are long since gone.
How did all those "time periods" accumulate in their order over their supposed millions upon millions of years, all the way up to the uppermost layer in the Grand Staircase, and THEN and not sooner, just get eroded down to the Kaibab along with the eroding of the cliffs of the staircase and the faulting of the whole area here and there and the cutting of the canyons and the spilling of the lava here and there and so on, AFTER all those aeons of accumulated time. I've brought this up many times before and you all just shrug it off but it's a very very strange phenomenon to try to explain on the OE theory of time periods. IF you actually think about it, but of course that's the problem, normally it probably doesn't even get thought about, you just see that expanse of the limestone around the GC and you say Oh the Kaibab Plateau and don't ask Why are we seeing the surface of the Permian era here?
No, none of the others below it were ever surface. All the contours of the land are followed by all the strata in parallel.
So how did all that get eroded away leaving such a nice flat plateau. Oh I know you can come up with a rationalization, I expect there will be lots of that of course rather than a real recognition of the actual implication. Just more mental conjurings to support all the other mental conjurings.
To my mind there is nothing substantial to the OE or the ToE, it's all clearly fantasy without a shred of reality to it. And again, THAT is why it is so "UNCONTROVERSIAL," it's unanswerable, unfalsifiable, unreal, just a shared delusion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-16-2014 3:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 249 by AZPaul3, posted 04-16-2014 4:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 252 by NoNukes, posted 04-16-2014 4:53 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 253 by frako, posted 04-16-2014 5:44 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 255 by AZPaul3, posted 04-16-2014 6:22 PM Faith has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 969 (724370)
04-16-2014 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by RAZD
04-16-2014 1:48 PM


Re: a proper falsification test vs an undoable test
Curiously, imho, the attitude that this Precambrian Cow type of test is a "good" falsification test of evolution smacks of self-satisfaction, confirmation bias and hubris, rather than a hard skeptical scientific developed rugged test.
Its a cliche. It doesn't matter if its the precambrian nor if its a cow.
The point is that we have a good geological record of the different eras that show the gradual development of more and more diverse species, without exception. We don't find modern species in the older layers. If we did, that'd be a big problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2014 1:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 969 (724371)
04-16-2014 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
04-16-2014 2:58 PM


Re: You can't disprove a construction built out of hot air
To my mind there is nothing substantial to the OE or the ToE
Yeah, well your mind sucks.
You can't even understand the most basic facts about our world because you can't stop yourself from worshiping a book as being flawless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 04-16-2014 2:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 249 of 969 (724374)
04-16-2014 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
04-16-2014 2:58 PM


Despicable Me
And you also apparently missed how I know AZ despises me.
So did I, apparently.
I did not realize that I despise you. Someone could have let me know, sent me a message, an e-mail, something. But, noooo! Y’all just let me continue on despising the ideas without any thought of despising the person herself (someone I actually kinda like in an oppositional crazy-person sorta way, but I guess I’ll have to give that up now. Pitty).
Anyway, I am sorry for coming into this so late.
I did notice something. You didn’t need anyone to defend you. You did a pretty good job defending your personage self all on your own. Like Nukes said, when you’re right, you’re right.
Now, you do have major problems defending your ideas. But, then of course, your ideas are quite inane, despicable, bigoted and amusingly entertaining. Again, this has nothing to do with despising the person with the despicable ideas. Although most will not even try, there really is no difficulty in separating the two.
Honestly, even if you insisted that I do so I doubt if I could despise you personally.
But your ideas? Whoa! What a crock of
Edited by AZPaul3, : title

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 04-16-2014 2:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 04-16-2014 4:36 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 250 of 969 (724375)
04-16-2014 4:26 PM


The "Geologic Timescale" does not exist
Oh and I keep forgetting to state the main point about the Kaibab plateau, which is that people keep saying the same processes that formed the strata are continuing as they always have, but the huge expanse of the Kaibab alone should tell you it's not going on as it always has. Where on earth is anything like that continuing on such a scale? And consider also those diagrams of the different strata of North America that HBD posted on a thread a while back, strata that extend across the entire continent. Layer after layer extending for vast distances. That is NOT going on anywhere today. The accumulations of sediment you can point to here and there are paltry little collections by comparison.
All this adds up to the fact that the strata are a done deal, they've been built, your "time periods" have come to an end. Not only are they no longer being laid down over such great distances any more, but as I keep pointing out, all the major disturbances to the stack as a whole have occurred in "recent time," AFTER they were all laid down. The tiltings, the faultings, the canyon cutting, the cliff forming, the volcanic intrusions and so on and so forth.
And where is the sediment that should be accumulating still above or in the Grand Canyon and Grand Staircase today? It's not happening, it would be ridiculous to expect it to happen and yet for supposed hundreds of millions of years you all think that's what continued era after era. What brought it to an end?
NONE OF THIS FITS YOUR GEOLOGIC TIMESCALE, it fits the model of A ONE-TIME EVENT that built the whole stack after which it underwent tectonic disturbance, which is exactly what would be expected of the worldwide Flood.
IT'S OVER AND DONE WITH, it is NOT an ongoing accumulation of sediments like a gigantic hourglass that tells time. The Geologic Timescale is a FICTION!

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-16-2014 8:14 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 251 of 969 (724376)
04-16-2014 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by AZPaul3
04-16-2014 4:01 PM


No problem
Thanks I guess. I didn't know what NN meant about when I'm right I'm right, but it didn't seem to be about the misunderstanding. So I don't think it ever got resolved but it also doesn't matter any more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by AZPaul3, posted 04-16-2014 4:01 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 252 of 969 (724377)
04-16-2014 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
04-16-2014 2:58 PM


Re: You can't disprove a construction built out of hot air
NN thinks I misunderstood the cow example, I did not, he misunderstood me. And you also apparently missed how I know AZ despises me.
You quite clearly did misunderstand the cow example. It may well be that your question about the cow standing for all mammals was not a misunderstanding, but in that case you used sarcasm, something which was quite easily missed when used in a print medium.
But it is quite clear from your arguments that you were missing the point of what falsification was and how a misplaced "cow" fit into that. Your arguments that both TOE and Creationism predicted no cow were simply off the mark.
One mistake that I did make was assuming that you had not made the mistake that RAZD also appears to have made. I was quite wrong about that.
Perhaps if I had another lifetime to put to the task I'd give some attention to the supposed upward changes in fossilized flora and fauna within the rock that are taken as examples of evolutionary change over time,
If you had another lifetime and were a completely different person, you might do that. But you aren't capable of doing any of that, and it is not the lack of time that limits you. You are allergic to scientific inquiry of all kinds. Such inquiries require the skills that you currently label as fantasy and pure mental whatever. I doubt you could find the open end of a test tube with both hands and a pipette.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 04-16-2014 2:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 253 of 969 (724378)
04-16-2014 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
04-16-2014 2:58 PM


Re: You can't disprove a construction built out of hot air
Again, microevolution supports the creation of separate Kinds, and microevolution is observed and observable, macroevolution is not, it's pure fantasy.
Whats a Kind? its not a word used in science or evolution but a lot by creationist but no definition, what scientists need to observe so called "macroevolution" is speciation we have observed that, we dont know what a kind is maby once its defined we can go and look if we have seen that too.
Pressie wants me to look at bores from bore holes. I'm sure one can see lots of layers of different kinds of rock and fossils and so on. What one can NOT see is time periods despite his insistence that that is so. He doesn't seem to know the difference between observation and interpretation, but then that's what all this OE and Evo stuff does to a person.
If you bored a hole in to a tree to see its rings and given your knowlege of how trees grow would you conclude that the rings where made in different time periods.
If you bore a hole in some snow and found layers, and using your knowlege of the mechanics of snow would you conclude that the layers must have been layed in different time periods?
The same goes for rock layers you just lack the knowledge of geology to come to the same conclusion
Perhaps if I had another lifetime to put to the task I'd give some attention to the supposed upward changes in fossilized flora and fauna within the rock that are taken as examples of evolutionary change over time, I mean such facts as what I reported is described for the Devonian at Wikipedia, a certain kind of plant at the bottom of the rock being considered to be the evolutionary precursor to a different kind of plant higher in the rock and so on. The idea that there is a time succession is pure fantasy. It fits some sort of order you all have in your minds, but again it IS all in your minds, all this is purely mental stuff without actual reality. You have NO idea how a "vascular" plant became a "seed bearing" plant, you simply believe that's what happened and you insist all the rest of us believe it, and you get away with it for most of credulous humanity. Utter fraudulent nonsense. So anyway that's one place I'd go to prove the ToE false. Knowing it's a lost cause, again, because it IS all nothing but a mental construct and you can't fight a mental construct that is shared by a whole scientific community, it can be rationalized ad infinitum. THERE's the real unfalsifiability of the ToE.
Nope we actually look at the fossils and come to the conclusion they haveto be related. We see what you call microevolution between 2 fossils, but we see more "microevolution" between the younger one and a still younger one, and more "microevolution" between the still younger one and the dammn young one ......

http://www.blog.gurukpo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/kankal.jpg
[/img]-->
So is this micro evolution or macro and if you dont see either its because you dont want to.
Originally there was a stack of layers above that layer, which you can see on diagrams of the Grand Staircase to the north, and a butte that remains to the south of the Grand Canyon, ten or more layers to another mile or so of depth over that same vast expanse. That's a LOT of material that got eroded away to leave that fairly flat surface of the Kaibab Plateau.
And the problem is?? do you know how much material had to be eroded so Australia is relatively flat?
It strikes me as humorous that the Kaibab limestone represents a TIME PERIOD, the PERMIAN time period. How did all the time periods below it stay parallel and those above it get washed away on OE geo theory? I'm curious because I can't think of a normal geological method that would accomplish that denuding of the layer of limestone, and I wonder if it's ever even been addressed somewhere. Looks to me like anywhere you bored through it you'd discover all the same layers that we see in the Grand Canyon to a great distance north and south, all remaining continuous and parallel with the Kaibab while the upper layers are long since gone.
It takes time to erode something that is 300 feet thick yea 300 feet of dead very small critters compacted i might add. And whats with the parallel thing again of course all layers are going to be relatively parallel to each other, do you expect that one layr will deform a bit and the next one will be deposited completely flat leaving a grate big hole where the bottom one deformed?
How did all those "time periods" accumulate in their order over their supposed millions upon millions of years, all the way up to the uppermost layer in the Grand Staircase, and THEN and not sooner, just get eroded down to the Kaibab along with the eroding of the cliffs of the staircase and the faulting of the whole area here and there and the cutting of the canyons and the spilling of the lava here and there and so on, AFTER all those aeons of accumulated time. I've brought this up many times before and you all just shrug it off but it's a very very strange phenomenon to try to explain on the OE theory of time periods. IF you actually think about it, but of course that's the problem, normally it probably doesn't even get thought about, you just see that expanse of the limestone around the GC and you say Oh the Kaibab Plateau and don't ask Why are we seeing the surface of the Permian era here?
Um have you ever thought about it though where does limestone form? Under the ocean, tiny little critters die and their shells become the limestone. So it was under water for a long time and the lower layers show signs of erosion they just dint get eroded all the way before a new layer started to form on top of them. And once the area got pushed upwards, water started to dig out a channel once it dug a channel to drain all the water out the upper layers dint get effected as much by erosion as only tiny amounts of water passed over them but in the channel all those tiny amounts added up to a grate river i think it still removes 400 tones of stuff a day even though its dammed to a near crawl.
So how did all that get eroded away leaving such a nice flat plateau. Oh I know you can come up with a rationalization, I expect there will be lots of that of course rather than a real recognition of the actual implication. Just more mental conjurings to support all the other mental conjurings.
The actual implications being that the only explanation is a 900 year old man built a boat stuffed all the animals on board then god turned on the hose and watched the world drown, then when everything was dead all the animals went back home the polar bares to the pole, the koalas to Australia well Noah had time to drive them all the way on his boat, then the animals ate the magic trees and magic grass that survived the flood, and the meat eaters too cause they couldn't eat meat until there was some exrta. Noah and his family repopulated the human race, naturally meaning that we are all inbreed rednecs, cause their children had only cousins to choose from.
Or it could be flat because the Colorado river is cutting in to a rising plateau. And not eroding already established mountains to form the normal V shapped valley.
To my mind there is nothing substantial to the OE or the ToE, it's all clearly fantasy without a shred of reality to it. And again, THAT is why it is so "UNCONTROVERSIAL," it's unanswerable, unfalsifiable, unreal, just a shared delusion.
Yea but your mind does not accept any facts contradicting your established beliefs. It just gets deleted or stored in the not real files. But sorry that is not how humanity gains knowledge. Any theory, the toe, or the theory of gravity, or germ theory has to account for all the facts. Its the reason we have advanced to the computer age. Before you dint have to account for all the facts, as long as it was aright with the local religion it was probably true. And when you used facts to show your local religion has it wrong you where imprisoned, hanged, burned tortured to recant ....
But now we live in an era where knowledge is gathered by science, and the scientific method and if your ideas dint follow those procedures they go to the fantasy shelf of the library right along with Zeus, the cracken the giant turtle on with our world sits ....
So see you are allowed to your opinion, but your beliefs will still remain on the fantasy shelf. While evolution, geology, and all other theories and facts and hypothesies have their own section, because they follow da rulz
Formulation of a question
Hypothesis
Prediction
Testing
Analysis
Replication
External review
Data recording and sharing
What creationists do is skip the first 7 and demmand the 8 step.
If they folowed the procedures they would go:
Formulate a question what is responsible for al the strata layers?
Hypothesis: A giant flood layed them down
Prediction: If A giant flood deposited the lyers in that order then we should see other floods depositing similar layers in similar orders.
Testing: Taking a sample of materials from all the layers depositing them all in a giant barrel randomly, adding water and saking it up
prediction proved wrong back to the drawing board.
But if you cant see how silly your flood explanation is there is no hope for you, you poke at evolution and that's ok if evolution is true it should only make the theory stronger, but don't look at your own silly explanations . Do you really think if tomorrow we find a bunny rabbit in the proterozoic and evolution is proven to be wrong we would all jump to creationism, no we would look for an explanation using the scientific method if it where to lead us to the creation "theory" fine if not also fine.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 04-16-2014 2:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 254 of 969 (724379)
04-16-2014 5:56 PM


Frako: There IS microevolution demonstrated in the fossil record for sure, which is for instance demonstrated by the many different kinds of trilobites, but there is NO way to determine which is the "parent" and which the offspring, what you have is what we always have with microevolution, simply a wonderful array of varieties or breeds. The parents could in fact be in the higher layers, there is absolutely no way to know.
ABE: As for "Kinds" the statement I made was simply that microevolution supports separately created Kinds, which does not require specifying what those are. However, I've argued plenty on that subject elsewhere anyway. /ABE
Erosion time is reduced when you have an enormous quantity of water dealing with newly laid sediments. The idea that it takes time doesn't deal with the physical task of denuding a huge expanse of limestone, time won't do it, it takes something that washes and scours and preferably when the sediments are still not completely lithified.
And for NN: I've always been considered to have a good scientific mind. From before I became a Christian. The ToE is not science, it's fantasy and to think scientifically about fantasy simply requires recognizing that it is fantasy and answering it as the mental construction it is.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by saab93f, posted 04-18-2014 5:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 372 by NoNukes, posted 04-18-2014 8:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 255 of 969 (724380)
04-16-2014 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
04-16-2014 2:58 PM


It's here.
NoNukes writes:
I doubt you could find the open end of a test tube with both hands and a pipette.
Psst, Faith.
Edited by AZPaul3, : title

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 04-16-2014 2:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 04-16-2014 7:46 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024