Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2017 4:05 AM
350 online now:
CRR, DrJones*, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (5 members, 345 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,511 Year: 21,117/21,208 Month: 1,550/2,326 Week: 5/881 Day: 5/119 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Which view makes sense of the fossil record ?
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 16 of 48 (734704)
08-01-2014 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 11:41 AM


Seems you've read too quickly. My point was that once you attach your theory to something that can't be refuted, it is easy to then conflate the theory with the facts themselves.

A rabbit in the Cambrian would falsify the theory.

A cow in the Pre-cambrian would falsify the theory.

A humming bird in the Carboniferous would falsify the theory.

Need I go on?

Further more, we can tie the order of the fossil record to the distribution of features in living species, and to their genomes. For example, we can see that vertebrates are a very diverse group that would have taken a lot of time to evolve. Therefore, we would expect the common ancestor of vertebrates to be found deep in the fossil record, and we do. We can also use molecular clocks (i.e. genetic drift) to estimate the time since common ancestry, and then confirm that in the fossil record.

That is why evolution is such a powerful theory. It can pull three independent sets of observations into a single coherent theory.

For example, Darwin was not going to argue that humans are the ultimate ancestor of all lifeforms, or vertebrate fish. That would contradict the fossil-order.

We could determine that humans were not the ultimate ancestor without looking at the fossil order at all. We could do that with both genetics and cladistics using living species. Darwin could have done it with cladistics only. So you are wrong on this one.

Evolution isn't the best explanation of the facts, and evidence doesn't belong to any theory, if a number of theories will fit the evidence. It's circular. Even if evidence is for the theory as you state, this is of no relevance because of affirmation of the consequent.

Then produce the theory. The first thing you need to do is explain why the fossils fit into the same nested hierarchy that living species fit into. The observed nested hierarchy is what every theory must explain.

Even if it was the best explanation, this doesn't mean it is the correct one.

Then you would need to explain why an incorrect theory keeps making such accurate predictions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 11:41 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 2:09 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7034
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 17 of 48 (734707)
08-01-2014 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 10:41 AM


Because the, "order" is already established, I can't refute ANY theory that incorporates the order, logically.

What you are missing is that the theory makes predictions about the placement and morpholog of fossils that have not been found yet, and new discoveries can test those predictions. Furthermore, the theory predicts that fossils will fall into a nested hierarchy which is tested with each and every new fossil species.

I think part of the problem with people at a forum like this is they tend to concentrate on the one creationist that is present on the forum and perhaps not read the latest items of interest and news given by official Creation-scientists such as the PHDs at Creation.com that have covered these issues quite in depth.

We are counting on the creationist to bring forward the material they find interesting. Scientists in general tend to stick to peer reviewed journals and original research, so it isn't surprising that they don't read creationist websites that do not contain original research. If you want to be noticed by the scientific community, you have to step into the scientific arena. Creationists refuse to do that.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 10:41 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 48 (734708)
08-01-2014 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 11:41 AM


For example, Darwin was not going to argue that humans are the ultimate ancestor of all lifeforms, or vertebrate fish. That would contradict the fossil-order. The evolution theory has to match up with the fossil order. so I am very far from confused or rambling. I think it is dishonest and improper for you to suggest I am, given I am far from it.

What did Darwin say was the ultimate ancestor of all lifeforms? And what did Darwin know of the fossil record? Your conclusion is pretty clear. The fossil record is indeed confirmation. We can agree that things like not putting humans at the beginning is not surprising, but most of the information we have about the fossil record is post Darwin. Darwin reasoned based on similarities he could observe, like the horse and tapir (see chapter 8 of origin of species). But in the same chapter he remarks on how poorly the geological record is known in his day. And the science of genetics was foreign to Darwin.

Your objection is completely unfounded.


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 14 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 11:41 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12969
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 19 of 48 (734709)
08-01-2014 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 11:41 AM


quote:

That wasn't my argument, so this is a genuine strawman

The order in the fossil record is a fact, and no different from any other in that respect.

quote:

. Seems you've read too quickly. My point was that once you attach your theory to something that can't be refuted, it is easy to then conflate the theory with the facts themselves.

It is quite common for evolutionists to use the fossil record as evidence for evolutionary-order, by matching it to the fossil "order". But the fossil order has nothing to do with evolution.


It is quite common for evolutionists to correctly point out that the order in the fossil record is evidence for evolution. And that is true - the fossil record is strongly consistent with evolution, which would be quite surprising if any version of Genesis-based creationism (Young or Old Earth) were true.

And that's no different from pointing out any other evidence that supports a theory.

quote:

For example, Darwin was not going to argue that humans are the ultimate ancestor of all lifeforms, or vertebrate fish. That would contradict the fossil-order. The evolution theory has to match up with the fossil order.

But is is not true that the fossil record has to match up with evolution to anything like the degree it does. The many transitional fossils, for instance, do not even have to exist - are not expected to exist, if creationism is true. Nor is it true that the fossil record could not match up with the order given in Genesis 1, which would support Old Earth Creationism, or for what order there was to be more plausibly explained by the Flood as Faith would claim. Even the Precambrian rabbit - if there were no other vertebrates in that period - would be hard to accommodate into any theory of how evolution happens.

So it is not sufficient to say that evolutionary theory would simply match any order that exists. Different orders could favour evolution much less and other views much more than the order that we have.

quote:

This is an assertion, a bald one.

It was an obvious fact that seemed to have slipped your notice.

quote:

Evolution isn't the best explanation of the facts, and evidence doesn't belong to any theory, if a number of theories will fit the evidence. It's circular. Even if evidence is for the theory as you state, this is of no relevance because of affirmation of the consequent.

And yet, despite your claims, science still works. Despite the fact that there are any number of theories that will fit whatever evidence we have. (The Duhem-Quine thesis).

quote:

Even if it was the best explanation, this doesn't mean it is the correct one.

Which is why I am speaking of evidence and not proof.

quote:

You only STATED that it is "quite clear", you didn't prove it, you just asserted it baldly.

In fact I proceeded to do so by explaining the actual situation.

quote:

You really seem to think just stating things ad nauseam proves a great deal don't you? I think it proves you have no answers to the information I presented.

And Mikey offers yet another dishonest straw-man.

If your claim that Faith was seen as a real expert on YEC, such that defeating her is a defeat for all YEC was true then you could have produced evidence for it. That I point out that it is obviously untrue in no way means that the responses I gave to your arguments do not exist.

quote:

Well, since moral-relativity collapses under it's own premises and your worldview shows that morality only exists between your ears, then "dishonesty" and "improper" things can be regarded as giving me some sort of evolutionary advantage, and since having an evolutionary advantage is MY set of moral values, it is illogical for you to believe that these two sins you mention should have value to me, since my values do not incorporate honesty and improperness, as a naked-ape, just trying to survive and pass on my genes. Why should I deem dishonesty and improperness, YOUR morals, as MY morals? If morals are relative, then YOU should incorporate MY morals.

Well Mikey, my honesty may be irrational by your standards, but it is the way I am and it is not going to change. However, your view is wrong even by your standards. Whether honesty is the best policy or not, being obviously dishonest is usually worse.

quote:

On a serious mikey-note, since I am not answerable to you morally, I will not defend myself regarding the "dishonesty" and "improper" statements. You have to prove it is dishonest to request we are not all judged by Faith's standard of posts.

And Mikey invokes yet another strawman. I only have to support my actual accusation, and that is it is dishonest for you to claim that Faith's arguments are taken as the best there are for Creationism.

quote:

But if a defend myself, that will mean I am answering to you, morally, I will dignify your statements by giving a defense, and since I don't see you as righteous, I feel no need to defend myself to a mere sinful man.

Well, then I shall just have to satisfy myself with the knowledge that I am more righteous than you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 11:41 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 1:28 PM PaulK has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 20 of 48 (734715)
08-01-2014 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 11:15 AM


Fair enough, but at least hear me out please. The blog-entry shows why the request to find a human in the Cambrian is a Red-Herring because the fossil record have never belonged to Charles Darwin. Because certain animals are found in certain places, it's a rigged game, you already know that I don't have the ability.

This appears to translate as "It's unfair of you to invite me to prove that you're wrong when you know perfectly well that all the evidence proves you right." Yes, so it does. But if we were wrong, it needn't.

Consider the following dialog:

A: John is dead.
B: No he isn't.
A: Prove me wrong, then. Show that his heart is beating.
B: This is a rigged game, we've already taken his pulse and know that he doesn't have one. You already know that I don't have the ability.

But taking John's pulse is a perfectly fair test of whether he's alive or dead. The fact that B won't find a pulse --- and knows that he won't find a pulse --- is not a sign that it's an unfair test, it's a sign that A is right and B is wrong.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 11:15 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 1:49 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 21 of 48 (734717)
08-01-2014 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
08-01-2014 12:46 PM


The order in the fossil record is a fact, and no different from any other in that respect.

Which was the point of my blog-entry. When an evolutionist asks us to "show a human in the Cambrian" they do so knowing there aren't any preserved there, which has nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with them not being preserved there. This is posteriori. Before the theory of evolution, there still wasn't a man in the Cambrian but we were not asked to provide a man in the Cambrian before evolution, which proves a conflation of the fossil order, and an evolution-order.

It is quite common for evolutionists to correctly point out that the order in the fossil record is evidence for evolution.

It isn't because the fossil-order was known BEFORE evolution. It is only " weak evidence" for it in the sense that Darwin stated that an evolution occurred that matched this order. So it is astonishingly weak evidence, given he wasn't going to say that the order didn't match the fossil order, was he? Nobody "decided" that the fossils showed an evolution except him, it was not apparent, and still is not apparent to many. By saying evolution occurred according to the right pattern, well all I can say to that is, "give me strength", because that is the EASIEST thing to do, it is a free-lunch.

But is is not true that the fossil record has to match up with evolution to anything like the degree it does. The many transitional fossils, for instance, do not even have to exist - are not expected to exist, if creationism is true. Nor is it true that the fossil record could not match up with the order given in Genesis 1, which would support Old Earth Creationism, or for what order there was to be more plausibly explained by the Flood as Faith would claim. Even the Precambrian rabbit - if there were no other vertebrates in that period - would be hard to accommodate into any theory of how evolution happens.

So it is not sufficient to say that evolutionary theory would simply match any order that exists. Different orders could favour evolution much less and other views much more than the order that we have.

This only works because Darwin knew the fossil order already. If he had predicted the fossil order, then the order would be strong evidence. A pre-Cambrian rabbit would not disprove evolution because evolution is plastic, they would just push back the evolution of mammals. Indeed, they already have because of things like mammal-hairs being found in amber, and mammals in dino-bellies. "The many transitional fossils" is a bald statement, you know that we do not regard a handful of fortunate candidates to be relevant compared to the MASSES of intermediates that are MISSING, conspicuously. So you assume I am to agree with you that transitionals exist. But you need to read ALL of my blog-entries.

If your claim that Faith was seen as a real expert on YEC, such that defeating her is a defeat for all YEC was true then you could have produced evidence for it. That I point out that it is obviously untrue in no way means that the responses I gave to your arguments do not exist.

But the evidence is that one poster believed "creationists" believe the whole fossil record is explainable as one event. That posters response is enough evidence to show an attitude that people only believe what they come across, even you in the opening message said things about Creationism, not just about Faith. So your responses, well, I'll concede your responses "exist", a bit like the fossil record. Yes it exists, and it has Darwin's signature on it, but let's face it, it was there without that signature.

Well Mikey, my honesty may be irrational by your standards, but it is the way I am and it is not going to change. However, your view is wrong even by your standards. Whether honesty is the best policy or not, being obviously dishonest is usually worse.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. The example I gave was of the silliness of relative-morality, and how it has no basis. You have just stated that "being dishonest is usually worse" but if I have an evolutionary advantage in being dishonest, then what do you mean by, "worse"?

My "view"? What view, I was using Reductio Ad Absurdum. The whole point is that it is not my view. That is the point of pretending I am a moral relativist. Didn't you even notice that? The point is I do believe in honesty, because I have a Christian basis for morality whereby dishonesty actually exists not just in my head, but can apply to everyone, because God does care and has said to not bare false witness. Meanwhile you have merely stated I am dishonest, but I don't know why yet. Seems you just made a wrong call.

But even if I was dishonest, it would be arrogant, given your worldview, to assume I should value your morals, since they would only be relevant to you. If there is no ultimate right or wrong then lying and telling the truth would be matters of personal interpretation.

You are truthful and honest, because really you know that there is ultimate reality to right and wrong, because you are made with a conscience, and made in the image of God.

I only have to support my actual accusation, and that is it is dishonest for you to claim that Faith's arguments are taken as the best there are for Creationism.

But they clearly are, here on this forum. That is not dishonest, because one evolutionist told me I believed what Faith did about the flood "creationists", and your opening message was about Faith, but then you stated things about Creationism in the same message. But even so Paul, my first comment about that issue was only conversational.

It's not dishonest to make a general observation that evolutionists will use the creationists they come across as the way to study the creation model. In a way this isn't even deliberate I would say, it is just natural to do that, my only request is that folk don't use out-of-date arguments about us based on their own limited knowledge. This thread has proven that kind of attitude does indeed exist.

It is the same with evolutionist organisations and TV programs, they either won't include creationist views or else they edit it so that it seems those views are nutty. This is sinful behaviour common among people but you don't have to qualify yourself as being one of those people, I am just saying it exists, because it does exist, I've experienced it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2014 12:46 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2014 2:05 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 35 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2014 10:36 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 22 of 48 (734720)
08-01-2014 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
08-01-2014 1:15 PM


This appears to translate as "It's unfair of you to invite me to prove that you're wrong when you know perfectly well that all the evidence proves you right." Yes, so it does. But if we were wrong, it needn't.

Consider the following dialog:

A: John is dead.
B: No he isn't.
A: Prove me wrong, then. Show that his heart is beating.
B: This is a rigged game, we've already taken his pulse and know that he doesn't have one. You already know that I don't have the ability.

But taking John's pulse is a perfectly fair test of whether he's alive or dead. The fact that B won't find a pulse --- and knows that he won't find a pulse --- is not a sign that it's an unfair test, it's a sign that A is right and B is wrong.

Why do you do this to yourself? You know what's coming next Dr A because I always get checkmate. Are you masochistic?

Your analogy isn't accurate, because it only would represent the fossil record and I am not saying there isn't a fossil record, I am saying there isn't an evolutionary-order, except the one assigned to match it by Darwin et al.

A. There is a fossil record.
B. No there isn't
A. Prove me wrong, show there isn't.
B. This is a rigged game, we already have seen there is a fossil record, you know I don't have the ability to change that.

Here I have highlighted your sleight-of-hand. You haven't understood the coloured-balls diagram in my blog-entry.

Think about it. You are arguing two things, not one.

1. There is a fossil record.
2. There is an evolution-history that matches it.

I would ask: "why does it match it?"
The answer you would have to give is; "Because Darwin wrote that it did."

Think about it, would he, knowing the evidence, predict that the forms at the bottom were the most recent, modern forms? So whatever the fossils showed, would guarantee an evolution-pattern. THINK! if the fossils were reversed, he would have said that humans were the common ancestor of many forms, because they would be at the bottom. Thus whatever the fossil record shows, was always going to fit with evolution, no matter what the record means in actual fact.

You see I can refute an evolution-order, but I can't refute a fossil-order, because a fossil order is a fact but evolution isn't, so what evolution has to do is make it's evolution-order the fossil order, so that it can't be refuted by definition. But new evidence is starting to show that the actual evolution order is not true, as new fossil-order comes to light. So then as more mammals are found alongside dinosaurs, what do they do? They match it again.

Thus, the plasticity of evolution is preserved, and you hear it in their statements all the time such as, "it seems mammals were already quite well developed and modern given this hair preserved in amber" So they. "push back" evolution and IGNORE the incorrect evolutionary prediction.

Think of it like this;

I find three balls on a table, one is blue and on the left, two are red and on the right. I then have a theory that they have been placed there because there seems to be an order. I state in my theory that the red ones on the right were put there on purpose and then I demand; "now refute me by showing there is no order!"

Well now please answer my question Dr A, just how exactly can I refute you if you have GUARANTEED that the evidence is in complete harmony with the theory? I can't change the balls, even if your theory is false. Just as I can't change the fossils even if evolution is false.

Perhaps, actually, the balls were rolled on there randomly? Are you saying that is impossible?

The fossil record is interpreted as a grave-yard of evolution instead of a graveyard of a mass-burial, watery catastrophism, generally speaking. Inundations. We also see at Mt St Helens, a small canyon with strata that if it had not happened in the 1980s would have been concluded to have been made perhaps over thousands of years. We know how rapid burial is an excellent cause of preservation etc...there's no point in going into all that though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2014 1:15 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2014 6:02 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 08-02-2014 4:20 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12969
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 23 of 48 (734721)
08-01-2014 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 1:28 PM


quote:

Which was the point of my blog-entry.

So the point of your blog entry was to claim that evidence can't support a theory.

quote:

It isn't because the fossil-order was known BEFORE evolution

I've already refuted that claim. And as others have pointed out many of the most significant discoveries came after Darwin.

quote:

This only works because Darwin knew the fossil order already. If he had predicted the fossil order, then the order would be strong evidence

But that doesn't explain why the fossil record supports evolution to the extent it does. If Precambrian rabbits were known before Darwin he could not have fixed up his theory to accommodate them, because they don't fit. So you aren't even addressing the points I made.

And, modern creationists, writing decades after Darwin also know the order of the fossil record. If that is all it takes then why haven't they been as successful as Darwin was ?

And I should point out that Darwin did predict that transitional fossils would be found and they were, so even there your argument fails.

quote:

"The many transitional fossils" is a bald statement, you know that we do not regard a handful of fortunate candidates to be relevant compared to the MASSES of intermediates that are MISSING, conspicuously. So you assume I am to agree with you that transitionals exist

Mikey, to be quite honest, your blog isn't worth reading. And there are far more transitional fossils than you know.

quote:

Don't be deliberately obtuse. The example I gave was of the silliness of relative-morality, and how it has no basis. You have just stated that "being dishonest is usually worse" but if I have an evolutionary advantage in being dishonest, then what do you mean by, "worse"?

Mikey, you really ought to learn to follow your own advice. Being obviously dishonest is an evolutionary disadvantage. To name just one reason if people know that you're dishonest it is much harder for you to con them. If you had any idea of the actual work in the field (even decades old common knowledge of game theory, such as The Prisoner's Dilemma) you'd know that.

quote:

My "view"? What view, I was using Reductio Ad Absurdum. The whole point is that it is not my view. That is the point of pretending I am a moral relativist. Didn't you even notice that? The point is I do believe in honesty, because I have a Christian basis for morality whereby dishonesty actually exists not just in my head, but can apply to everyone, because God does care and has said to not bare false witness. Meanwhile you have merely stated I am dishonest, but I don't know why yet. Seems you just made a wrong call.

Mikey I pointed out quite a number of your dishonest claims. And really you can't get out of it by pretending to be a Christian. Because as you point out - if you really were a Christian you wouldn't be so dishonest.

quote:

But they clearly are, here on this forum. That is not dishonest, because one evolutionist told me I believed what Faith did about the flood "creationists", and your opening message was about Faith, but then you stated things about Creationism in the same message. But even so Paul, my first comment about that issue was only conversational.

But this is not true.

Faith certainly should be expected to have a better knowledge of YEC belief than of the arguments made for those beliefs. And this is pretty muchh the same for everyone on both sides. So a mistake about creationist beliefs is insufficient to make your case.

My opening message was about Faith because I wanted her to defend a claim that she made. Which does not entail that she has the best arguments at all. Nor did I rule out other people coming in or using creationist resources. So that isn't even weak support for your claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 1:28 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

    
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4600
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 24 of 48 (734722)
08-01-2014 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Taq
08-01-2014 12:04 PM


A rabbit in the Cambrian would falsify the theory.

A cow in the Pre-cambrian would falsify the theory.

A humming bird in the Carboniferous would falsify the theory.

Because we know rabbits aren't found in the cambrian, as marine life generally is.

Because we know a humming-bird is not found in the carboniferous, yet birds have been found in dino-bellies.

We won't find a cow in the pre-cambrian because we know they're not there, tends to be small lifeforms, note that pollen has been found in the pre-cambrian but evolutionists have labelled such evidence, "anomolous"

In fact they would actually just argue contamination, and I have read that they have done this before. They also cast doubt on potentially compelling evidence such as human footprints (Laetoli) or even the human and dino footprints found together. It is at least interesting evidence but in one book Dawkins just says it's fake even though they shown how it wasn't fake.

You are setting up easy targets, and knocking them over. Logically I can prove that I can play the same exact game you're playing: HERE:

We have twenty balls on a table, they are mixed up but might show some kind of pattern, by chance you get three red balls close to one another.

I now have a theory that they are placed there on purpose. I show you 3 reds in position 1, two blues in position 2 and 2 greens in position 3.

Now if I am wrong, please show a blue in position 1.

Please show a red in position 3.

Please show a green in position 2.

Thus I can't refute you because your theory "matches" wherever the balls were placed.

Then produce the theory. The first thing you need to do is explain why the fossils fit into the same nested hierarchy that living species fit into. The observed nested hierarchy is what every theory must explain.

Creationists have. They've shown we can produce a nested hierarchy for design-features in human designs, such as wheels, engines, etc... I will have to fish for the links, it's not a subject that I regard as impressive.

Your post is elephant-hurling.

Then you would need to explain why an incorrect theory keeps making such accurate predictions.

Like pollen in the pre-cambrian? Or that we would find missing all of the missing chains? Or predictions pertaining to homology, that don't match up after all? I would say failed predictions of evolution are exciting to me and awesome, because as time goes on things like retrogressive and vestigial organs are negated. Homology is negated, the ridiculous, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is negated. The mammals in dinos bellies were not predicted, nor grass in the dino-age.

There are loads of failed predictions of evolution, but you simply won't agree, even though I read all of the time statements by evolution-scientists expressing their amazement about what they find, because it was not predicted or expected.

We could determine that humans were not the ultimate ancestor without looking at the fossil order at all. We could do that with both genetics and cladistics using living species. Darwin could have done it with cladistics only. So you are wrong on this one.

It doesn't prove anything, you just think it does. It is tautologous that more similar creatures will sometimes have similar genetics, but the opposite is also true with homoplastic, or analogous examples, wolves and various insects that look the same but their genes aren't. What they do then is absurdly say that evolution converged to create the same things, such as eyes, some forty times over. ROFLMAO! Lol! Where is the proof? Nowhere!

You are just committing the elephant-hurling fallacy by quoting all of the accepted mainstream science that has already been refuted by scientists at CMI.

Do you think the same old canards, regurgitated in various different forms are going to somehow now impress me given the mass of evidence for design and creation?

Some things also only make sense by design-constraints. There are no intermediate avian, contraflow lung intermediate. Evolution would have took the path of least resistance and modified a bellow-type lung instead, like with the bat, not produce and ingenious through-flow system that is incredibly complex and only works together with the bird's anatomy.

And we see this empirical evidence everywhere. The Seahorse is an example of a vertical fish, the path of least resistance? Lol! No way, it is designed, and has no ancestors. Indeed, there are no ancestors for bats, that have full echolocation preserved in fossils for us to see. Pterosaurs and Pterodactyls, no ancestors, no ancestors for turtles.

And that's what we see, that incredibly complex designs that are required for the specific creature are there, and unique, and aren't modified. The Giraffe's bone neck-structure, not modified, ball and joint. The sea-slugs have special spikes connected to the scilia-hairs internally, it collects these little weapons from a formidable prey, and they are taken to the spikes on it's back. Had to be designed, it's that simple.

We see the path of most resistance that shows complex designs that aren't modifications, and have no evolution-reasons to exist, because they are simply needed for the job the critter needs to do.

Design is everywhere, and evolution is a royal joke in comparison. It never ceases to amuse me that anyone can take it's tenuous so called tautological, circumstantial evidences, seriously. I mean seriously, just grow up, it didn't happen, and "science" as an epithet won't prove it did. Get on your knees and admit he's there, and stop this nonsense. You are a man, not an animal, and you ask why and you bloody well know why you do, and the other billions of species don't.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Taq, posted 08-01-2014 12:04 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2014 2:55 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 27 by JonF, posted 08-01-2014 4:14 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2014 6:57 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 30 by edge, posted 08-01-2014 9:31 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 08-04-2014 1:19 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 48 (734723)
08-01-2014 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 2:09 PM


We won't find a cow in the pre-cambrian because we know they're not there, tends to be small lifeforms, note that pollen has been found in the pre-cambrian but evolutionists have labelled such evidence, "anomolous"

All of those things you are citing as facts are also absolute denials of the YEC interpretation of the Bible. They also are pretty close to being denials of special creation in a one week period. One might well wonder what your point might be.


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 24 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 2:09 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3881
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 26 of 48 (734725)
08-01-2014 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 11:47 AM


a lot of creationists such as I and the folk at CMI, incorporate a flood-boundary as a conjectural part of our model. It seems very much as though the evolutionists here didn't even know this, otherwise the blanket-statement would never have been mentioned because it's effectively to shoot ones self in the foot.

I'm certainly aware of that. I 'my pretty familiar with the problems of such models. You have been around here long enough to know that your characterization of the reality - based group here is false.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 11:47 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3881
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 27 of 48 (734727)
08-01-2014 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 2:09 PM


Great argument. The lack of evidence against evolution is evidence against evolution.

Oh, and if you asked one of us why the fossil record is evidence for evolution you'd get something like "because the order of the fossil record can be derived from first principles of the ToE without any knowledge of the fossil record". No mention of Darwin.

I see you are holding on to pollen. It's not anomalous, it's thoroughly debunked. I One of the oldest PRATTs. You aren't much different from Faith.

And while I'm here, what's the consensus on the fludde boundaries?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 2:09 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 28 of 48 (734734)
08-01-2014 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 1:49 PM


Why do you do this to yourself? You know what's coming next Dr A because I always get checkmate. Are you masochistic?

Your analogy isn't accurate, because it only would represent the fossil record and I am not saying there isn't a fossil record, I am saying there isn't an evolutionary-order, except the one assigned to match it by Darwin et al.

A. There is a fossil record.
B. No there isn't
A. Prove me wrong, show there isn't.
B. This is a rigged game, we already have seen there is a fossil record, you know I don't have the ability to change that.

Here I have highlighted your sleight-of-hand. You haven't understood the coloured-balls diagram in my blog-entry.

Think about it. You are arguing two things, not one.

1. There is a fossil record.
2. There is an evolution-history that matches it.

I would ask: "why does it match it?"
The answer you would have to give is; "Because Darwin wrote that it did."

Well, that was incoherent nonsense.

THINK! if the fossils were reversed ...

You think if the fossils were reversed. Then the species living now --- humans and wombats and giraffes and so forth --- would appear in the oldest rocks, and not in more recent rocks, which would show only extinct species of vertebrates etc. How would scientists explain that? It cannot be that all modern mammals went extinct before the rise of (e.g.) the dinosaurs, because they are manifestly not extinct.

What we see in the fossil record is that in more recent strata modern groups are better represented, consistent with the idea that these strata represent a history, and that this history includes new groups arising. The following observations would not be consistent with this idea:

* The reverse being the case, with modern groups being best represented at the bottom of the column.

* Species being evenly distributed through the column, so that modern critters are present in the oldest rocks.

* Species being arranged in order of size, with the largest at the top and the smallest at the bottom, or vice versa.

* Species being arranged according to how many legs they have, with fish and snakes and worms at the bottom, then all the humans and birds, then all the quadrupeds, then all the insects, then the crabs and spiders, then the lobsters, and the millipedes at the top ...

* Etc, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 1:49 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 29 of 48 (734735)
08-01-2014 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 2:09 PM


Your dumb Gish Gallop is as off-topic as it is stupid, i.e. very. If there's any point in it you feel confident enough to argue for, you could start a new thread. Otherwise, you should stick to denying obvious facts about the fossil record, which is also stupid but is at least relevant to the O.P.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 2:09 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 3904
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 30 of 48 (734739)
08-01-2014 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by mike the wiz
08-01-2014 2:09 PM


We won't find a cow in the pre-cambrian because we know they're not there, tends to be small lifeforms, note that pollen has been found in the pre-cambrian but evolutionists have labelled such evidence, "anomolous"

Actually, I would have lableled it 'spurious'. You refer to pollen grains in the Hakatai Shale, I believe. However, those grains were shown to be concentrated in cracks in the rock. They were also white in color, which is the nature of modern, not fossil pollen, and they are not flattened into the plane of the shale laminations as would be expected.

In fact they would actually just argue contamination, and I have read that they have done this before. They also cast doubt on potentially compelling evidence such as human footprints (Laetoli) or even the human and dino footprints found together. It is at least interesting evidence but in one book Dawkins just says it's fake even though they shown how it wasn't fake.

In the case of the Hakatai, the interpretation just happens to be correct according to all of the evidence. You can complain, but that will not change things.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by mike the wiz, posted 08-01-2014 2:09 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017