Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 4:12 AM
34 online now:
frako, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,573 Year: 3,610/19,786 Month: 605/1,087 Week: 195/212 Day: 10/27 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Author Topic:   Why Darwinism is wrong
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 970 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 301 of 305 (227660)
07-30-2005 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by randman
07-29-2005 5:23 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here but in general:

Similarities in function that have somewhat different structures are explained by convergent evolution (and I think it is a huge stretch in logic to ascribe such a result to a creator).

Similarities in function that have similar structures are best explained by common ancestry. (A creator is more logical here except there is no need to invoke one since there is plenty of evidence for common ancestry in nearly every case which has been studied.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 5:23 PM randman has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3272 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 302 of 305 (227670)
07-30-2005 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by randman
07-29-2005 5:23 PM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
randman,

Because I see no reason if macro-evolution could occur, that it would not produce the same similarities across a wide range of species, and thus the data would be interpreted as common ancestry perhaps when it was just micro or macro-evolution producing convergent similarities.

So the alternative interpretation to evolution & common descent is actually evolution, where common descent is implicitly involved? :rolleyes:

and it can also be explaine, imo, by a Common Creator.

And the evidence of a common creator = zero. And you accuse evo's of overstating the case!

You find it funny for me to show you guys your own inconsistency using your own theory, eh?

But as Jazz points out, your "inconsistency" only exists if evolution occurred.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 07-30-2005 11:17 AM


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 5:23 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:23 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3272 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 303 of 305 (227796)
07-30-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by randman
07-29-2005 5:54 PM


Re: Huh?
randman,

But my point on whales is that if evolutionists found out that creatures appeared to be intermediaries between whales and fish, then they would say whales evolved from fish, and that land mammals evolved from whales, not that whales would be called anything but mammals.

And if that were the only evidence, why not? A more tentative hypothesis than the existing accepted wisdon it would be, but perfectly logical nevertheless.

But mutiple lines of evidence point to cetaceans being artiodactyl mammals, so we accept that instead.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by randman, posted 07-29-2005 5:54 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2976 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 304 of 305 (227877)
07-30-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by mark24
07-30-2005 6:56 AM


Re: you are right on no transitions in the fossil record
Mark, you display the typical problem of evolutionism. You want it to be science, but you are not willing to examine the assumptions by which you judge individual pieces of evidence without resorting to attacking creationism and effectively arguing that evolution must be right because you think creationism is a weaker case.

You guys are not arguing science, but ideology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by mark24, posted 07-30-2005 6:56 AM mark24 has not yet responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 305 of 305 (227879)
07-30-2005 4:24 PM


Okay, time to put this dog to sleep.
Witching Hour Thank GOD!


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019