How much longer?

[Loudmouth]

Yup!

Can you name the scientific law that is violated by macroevolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you name the scientific law that is violated by macroevolution?

No.

All these laws are drawn up and made to fit with the aid of computers and whatnot.

Scientists build and calibrate their own equipment and make all the rules as they go along.

They call them "discoveries."

Example: Date the rocks by the fossils; date the fossils by the rocks.

And of the 70-some different ways to date the earth, scientists pick only the five (?) that give them deep time, and then make up some explanation as to why the other 65 are PRATTS.

 

[justlookinla]

Define "new life forms".

Pine tree, human, conconut, bacteria. Stuff like that.

If you're talking about species, then you're wrong. Natural selection does lead to new species. Are you suggesting that genetic mutations and natural selection stops happening at a certain point?

All natural selection does is act in the new life form which mutation produces and populates (sometimes) that new life form.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

We have all of these creationists claiming that macroevolution violates scientific laws, yet they appear incapable of telling us which scientific law is being violated.

All these laws are drawn up and made to fit with the aid of computers and whatnot.

Made to fit what?

Scientists build and calibrate their own equipment and make all the rules as they go along.

They call them "discoveries."

Example: Date the rocks by the fossils; date the fossils by the rocks.

They date rocks by the ratio of isotopes in them.

And of the 70-some different ways to date the earth, scientists pick only the five (?) that give them deep time, and then make up some explanation as to why the other 65 are PRATTS.

Are you able to show that those 65 other methods are able to accurately measure the age of the Earth?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

All natural selection does is act in the new life form which mutation produces and populates (sometimes) that new life form.

Act how? Describe in your own words what you think natural selection is.

 

[justlookinla]

Act how? Describe in your own words what you think natural selection is.

For a simplified explanation, Darwin's finches would be an example. Two groups of finches with different beak sizes (because of mutation variation), drought produces harder nuts, the group of finches with the bigger beaks survive, the others don't or are reduced in population size in relation to the larger beaked finches.

 

[mickiio]

Are you kidding?

If you had proof overturning evolution you would be rich. First, you would win the Nobel prize. That is something like 3/4 million US $ right there for personal use. Imagine what you would get from speaking fees? Heck Sarah Palin was making over $100,000/engagement at the height of her popularity, and you would be a way bigger celebrity than her. You would be regarded as one of the great scientists of this era. Then you would get funding from the Templeton Foundation and other religious based organizations. You wouldn't know what to do with all the money you would get.

It's a pretty good defense TBH. Take out the competition. Especially when you don't have a very good offense.

 

[mickiio]

No.

All these laws are drawn up and made to fit with the aid of computers and whatnot.

Scientists build and calibrate their own equipment and make all the rules as they go along.

They call them "discoveries."

Example: Date the rocks by the fossils; date the fossils by the rocks.

And of the 70-some different ways to date the earth, scientists pick only the five (?) that give them deep time, and then make up some explanation as to why the other 65 are PRATTS.

SO MUCH circular reasoning in that community!

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

For a simplified explanation, Darwin's finches would be an example. Two groups of finches with different beak sizes (because of mutation variation), drought produces harder nuts, the group of finches with the bigger beaks survive, the others don't or are reduced in population size in relation to the larger beaked finches.

Great. You understand how natural selection is based upon the environment a species is living in. Explain how this process would not be possible in human evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

SO MUCH circular reasoning in that community!

Yes ... science corroborates science.

And with the help of computers now, evolution is just that much stronger.

And it will get stronger yet, until Jesus comes.

The theory of evolution will reach its highest peak in the Tribulation period.

 

[justlookinla]

Great. You understand how natural selection is based upon the environment a species is living in. Explain how this process would not be possible in human evolution.

Nope, that's not the issue and surely by now, after probably hundreds of posts, you realize that. I'm not sure why you simply cannot address the issue and lack of evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process which produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) from long ago. I've pointed out over and over, this isn't about common descent.

As we see in the finch example, natural selection does not produce new life forms, it only acts on existing life forms.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just out of curiosity, why are the lower jawbones missing from everything on that puzzle except the top three?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

It's a pretty good defense TBH. Take out the competition. Especially when you don't have a very good offense.

Scientists have much more fun trying to falsify a theory. It thrives on new discoveries as it expands our knowledge of the natural world. If you're so confident that evolution is not a fact, write your paper demonstrating a better explanation with verifiable evidence. Are you willing to do this?

 

[Loudmouth]

SO MUCH circular reasoning in that community!

So much misrepresentation by the creationists.

Rocks aren't dated by fossils. They are dated by the ratio of isotopes within them.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes ... science corroborates science.

How does the method of measuring isotopes in rocks force the dates to be millions and billions of years old?

And with the help of computers now, evolution is just that much stronger.

And it will get stronger yet, until Jesus comes.

The theory of evolution will reach its highest peak in the Tribulation period.

Are you saying that the DNA sequences are fabricated?

 

[AV1611VET]

So much misrepresentation by the creationists.

Rocks aren't dated by fossils. They are dated by the ratio of isotopes within them.

What's this then?

Relative Dating. Fossils are found in sedimentary rocks that formed when eroded sediments piled up in low-lying places such as river flood plains, lake bottoms or ocean floors. Sedimentary rock typically is layered, with the layers derived from different periods of sediment accumulation. Almost any place where the forces of erosion - or road crews - have carved through sedimentary rock is a good place to look for rock layers stacked up in the exposed rock face.

When you look at a layer cake, you know that the layer at the bottom was the first one the baker put on the plate, and the upper ones were added later. In the same way, geologists figure out the relative ages of fossils and sedimentary rock layers; rock layers, and the fossils they contain, toward the bottom of a stack of sediments are older than those found higher in the stack.

SOURCE

 

[Loudmouth]

What's this then?SOURCE

What's this then?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

 

[mickiio]

Macroevolution is just repeated rounds of natural selection over many generations.



So you are saying that a giraffe could give birth to a human?

No. That crosses kinds.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. That crosses kinds.

You said that animals already had all the variation within them. That would mean that giraffes have human variation already within them. Or did you misspeak?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I'm not sure why you simply cannot address the issue and lack of evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process which produced both pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) from long ago.

First, you have not demonstrated that you know what the scientific method is and how it is used. Posting an image does not demonstrate you know what it means.

Second, the evidence has been presented to you. You have demonstrated you don't know what is and what is not evidence. In your own words, what would evidence look like to you for the claims to be convincing?

You confirmed that you know how natural selection works, however you do not understand the results of it over millions of years and generations.

As we see in the finch example, natural selection does not produce new life forms, it only acts on existing life forms.

Yes, finches are a great example of natural selection. Another good one is a duck. Duck's are birds that belong to the Anatidae family. Other species in this family are geese and swans. You would agree geese and swans are vastly different than a duck, right? For one, ducks have 16 fewer bones in their neck.

Would you also agree that a duck is vastly different from a bat? They both can fly right? They both must be birds? Except they're not, bats are mammals.