Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)

Merry Christmas. Be happy.

If a scientific theory is true, you ought to be able to make predictions. This happens with the theory of evolution.Back in the 19th century, scientists had made up their minds that birds had to be descended from reptiles (dinosaurs). They figured it out by noticing certain key morphological similarities.But they didn't have any fossils to back it up.A few years later they found this rare fossil of a lizard-bird.Here's a picture of it: lizard birdThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-25-2005 10:28 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-25-2005 10:28 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-25-2005 10:30 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-25-2005 10:30 AM

The supposition that birds have to be descended from anything but birds is what you say, just scientists "making up their minds" based on their evolutionist assumption. A creationist notices the same morphological similarities and marvels at God's economy of design. Fossils don't back anything up. You cannot prove descent from fossils. It's all conjecture, falling for the appearance of things. It's also funny how evolutionists will treat an artist's rendering as if it were the real thing. All those depictions of nonexistent ape men, ho ho.Archaeopteryx is just Archaeopteryx, a member of who-knows-what Kind. There were other flying reptiles you know, so maybe one of those that developed some feathers (convergent evolution and all that)This message has been edited by Faith, 12-25-2005 12:15 PM

Well, the fossils are real. There's 7 of them. It looks like a cross between a bird and a lizard to me. A fossil is a snapshot of what something looks like.Just another one of those transitionals that creationists say we don't have.It's the predictive element that I'm emphasizing. They found the evidence AFTER they figured it out.

Oh bosh.Sorry that's not much of an answer but I have to go have my Christmas Day.See you later.

They said in the 19th century that apes and men are closely related. But they didn't have any hard evidence. Then they started finding these fossilized remains of something rather like men, but not quite like men. Many of these fossils contained skulls. They weren't quite like a modern man's skull though. For one thing, the brain was smaller. The forehead tended to jut forward too. One of them turned out to be a fraud. Another one they think now might have been a modern man. But they found more and more, some much older, and they looked rather ape-like.Here we have some hard evidence that our theory is true. Of course it's not 100% proven. Maybe all those skulls that we found were those of modern men who happened to be born with some severe birth defects. But that seems unlikely.Here's some pictures for you. hominidsThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-25-2005 01:00 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-25-2005 01:01 PM

All these hominids are transitionals--you know, that thing creationists say we don't have any of.

Sorry, duplicateThis message has been edited by Faith, 12-26-2005 02:49 PM

Robin, I'm going to give you a point on the subject of transitionals according to my point-system suggestion just because I don't feel like researching it and your point is good enough that there appears to be some kind of continuous line; and I think a point should be given if I fail to answer you. OK? This is just a spur of the moment decision, not really how I'd like to see a point system run, but a way to deal with this thread for the moment instead of bogging it down. We can always come back to it later and I might even come up with an answer to it later. Meanwhile, maybe the thread could rest a while unless you have another topic to bring up.Evo Robin = 1 Creo Faith = 0

Funny that you mention this. I was going to give you a point for your argument about gene loss.Robin 1, Faith 1.

I will move on, but I brought up fossils because I think they are one of the best proofs of evolution. However, it may be that I don't understand the others.

If you want to bring in Randman to discuss transitionals, that's ok by me. Seems fair.

======================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD, ROBINROHAN & FAITH ONLY, PLUS INVITEES
======================================================That's OK, I don't need to invite anyone in at this point, but thanks for the offer. Thanks also for the point for gene loss -- allele loss. I really appreciate it as that is my main argument after all.I think I'm ready to let this thread rest for a while myself -- although, who knows, I might get an inspiration later today even. ======================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD, ROBINROHAN & FAITH ONLY, PLUS INVITEES
======================================================This message has been edited by Faith, 12-26-2005 08:28 PM

If evolution is true, then the earth has to be very old indeed. A billion years old would not be nearly enough. We wouldn't even have reached the lizard-cow phase yet.According to my book, it's 4.6 billion years old. Life didn't even get started until about 800 million years after that. It was a rather dull place for a very long time.So my job here is to explain how we know how old it is. There's something called radiometric dating. you can read about it hereCertain elements have radioactive parts and this stuff decays at a constant rate. There are different rates for different elements.So you find a rock that you think might be old, and you see how much potassium it's got and how much argon it's got. Potassium decays to argon. If you have a lot of argon, that means it's very old. That's how I understand it.The main point is the constancy of the change from potassium to argon.

I'm not even going to read it, Robin, at least not right now. I am in the habit of conceding all claims for radiometric dating. Yes, I figure it's wrong somehow, but I can't prove it, soRobin - 2Faith - 1