|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution and the BIG LIE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
When you get to the point that you do not have sufficient evidence you can go no further unless you are going to accept by faith that something happened. Then I will say why should I have faith in your theory when You say my theory is based on faith and therefore is unbelievable. So when you reach the point evidence is not sufficient to prove Position #1 and Position #2 you must say ok we are at a dead end. When we come to a point where we don't know for sure, we are not at a "dead end",
There would only be a serious problem if there were no possible ancient ancestors that shared traits with the species in question.
Its your theory so have at it. We agree that this theory applies to both the evolutionist model and the creationist model, at least since some hypthetical flood event.
Message 96quote: Because this is essentially the same theory for creationists and non-creationists there is no testable differentiation between the two models for the period of time where they overlap. To find a testable differentiation we need to look back into the past, to the point where the two models diverge. From Two of Every Kind (see box at bottom):
quote: So we should see the effect of the orchard vs tree arrangement in the fossil and genetic record, and it should be repeated after the flood event, which should also show up as an extinction event that winnows species down to the original kinds again. From this information we can state a corollary to theory #1 that must be true for the creation model and false for the science model:
Theory #1b (a corollary of theory #1 if creationism is true):That as we go back in time from generation to generation, the species will converge on their parent "original kinds" at the same time and in one general location ... once for the hypothetical flood event and once again for creation. ie - there should be a clear delineation in the fossil and geological record, at two different times and places, and we should not find any evidence that continues at all below the second delineation, to say nothing of evidence that forms a tree of relationships: Theory #1c (a corollary of theory #1 if evolution\geology is true):That as we go back in time from generation to generation, the species will converge on their individual parent species at different times and different places ... in a fairly continuous process that forms a tree of relationships. ie - we should find evidence that forms a tree:
If we can agree on this and the tests for the different corollaries then we can move on to the evidence for descent from parent species or kinds and see if (1) the theory #1 can, or cannot, explain the evidence,(2) the theory #1b can, or cannot, explain the evidence, (3) the theory #1c can, or cannot, explain the evidence. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : thumb we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks, ICANT.
You are aiming at somebody I ain't. You are looking for yec's lots of luck. And the resident YEC's seem to have disappeared. One point that is demonstrated by this, is that evolution is not the issue, the issue is common ancestors, not how we get here from there. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: look into co-evolution. k? Edited by RAZD, : the long and the short of it. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... what is not addressed is that the walnut existed well before the chipmunk, being a form of vegetation ... Is there a different view, as both appear wanting? You have not explored when the walnut tree evolved or when the hard shell evolved, whether the chipmunk eats other foods that have softer shells, notably pine nuts, bugs, etc etc etc etc. This is all, however, off topic. Please start a new threadEvC Forum: Proposed New Topics Please see Message 96 and Message 98 for latest topic input. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
yes, I asked ray to bring it here, it was off-topic on the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
False. Creationism rejects microevolution. Actually you can find lots of references to microevolution on creationist sites. Thus the best you can say is that some creationists reject microevolution (or anything with the word "evolution" in it - a rather extreme bit of cognitive dissonance imho).
Creationism says that each species owe their existence to special creation. Speciation has been observed.
The undisturbed fossil record as seen in the crust of the Earth shows species appearing, changing slightly, then disappearing. No evolution is seen. Changing slightly is evolution. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, the definition does not have a minimum threshold for the amount of change to qualify. This is an image you may have seen before, of Pelycodus fossils:
What you see are fossils sorted by depth in the geological column (see left side scale) and by size (see bottom scale). The population divides into two different populations - speciation. The only difference is size and the horizontal lines represent the distribution of size within each population captured in the fossil record. The fossils sort themselves, so this is not an interpretation of the data. You will note that you can connect the horizontal lines with vertical ones because they overlap in sizes from one depth to another, but the overall trend is to larger size until you get to the speciation event, where one branch reverts to the smaller size. The whole graph shows change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- evolution (as defined by scientists studying evolution). As far as the topic of this thread goes, these fossils demonstrate the kind of fossil evidence available to connect fossils at one geoplogical age with the fossils in another: overlapping with a trend towards change in one or more hereditary traits. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : cleaned up by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024