Evolution as Fact and Theory

quote:

---

Intelligent design is a fact. Irreducible complexity is a fact.

---

And your evidence for this is? Even the lead ID theorists admit it is not a complete theory, and in its infancy. How does this allow you such grand claims?

quote:

---

All you need is one thing to tip over the whole applecart of evolution. Like the Paluxy river prints. "Poof". End of evolution.

---

Well you actually need more than that to get your own theory accepted. You are correct that evolution can be overturned if evidence accumulates which it cannot include in its model. That is why it is good science.But if/when you manage to tip over evolution, that would not mean your favorite theory becomes the default scientific theory.You will have to present your theory and it must be able to handle the data from many diverse fields.You must also make sure (when trying to tip the cart) not to confuse debunking a particular mechanism, with debunking the entire ToE. There are many large chunks of modern evo theory that can fall without ending the ToE itself.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

I went. I looked. I scratched my head.The prints are not obviously ANYTHING, until they put that convenient human print overlay, which if you notice does NOT follow the bottom part of the foot at all, and excludes pieces they should have highlighted at the top of the foot (if they were going to be consistent with the toes).They could easily have been other dinosaur tracks.The only think that looked conclusive at all was the hand print. I'd like to see more about that.But for sake of argument let's say that these prints are real. Exactly what does that mean? Although it might cause alot of evolutionists to have to revisit their theories, how would it help creationists at all?The authors use the dating of rocks to place them well beyond Biblical ages. Either that means the Bible is STILL wrong, or the dating is incorrect, which at worse would open up the possibility of certain dinosaurs living in isolated pockets for longer than expected. This is not a problem for evolutionary theory.This is not to bring up the problem that dinosaurs are not found in the Bible and especially not on the ark. Or the sorting issues in earlier beds.Kind of you can't have your cake and eat it too on this one.By the way, your Irreducible Complexity example was horrific, I am sure Behe (the author who came up with it) would be mighty disappointed. A liver is a complex organ, and you can't live without it right now... so? Did it have to form all at once as we find it today in humans? Could there have been no precursors?Of course there could. The liver is NOT an irreducibly complex system.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Heheheh... Something was bothering me about those photos so I went back and looked at them again.Take a very close look at the "human foot" which is inside the dino print. Especially the close up where they identify the upper foot and the "toes". Do the mouse thing over them to see what they are outlining.Notice anything strange? The foot is emerging from the rock, not depressed. Particularly the "toes" can be seen as raised surfaces.This is not a cast (which is where you expect to see such a thing), it is the "fossil" itself!Run through wet concrete and tell me if the ball and toes of your feet leave impressions or bulging hills.Maybe the photos don't do them justice? All I know is the dinosaur prints appear to be an impression, and the human print mainly bulging up.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros) Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.