Challenging Evolution

As I have said, I haven't fully researched the flood data but the last time I looked at the info, there were conflicting reports and inconclusive evidence.

you continually make this statement of inconclusivity without ever adressing any of the evidence. the problem with the fraud argument is that it doesn't hold weight. even if som eare frauds (can we have some examples of fraudulent therapsids please) what about the ones that are not? The point about the therapsid jaw is that it contains features that are seen in both reptiles and mammals particularly the case of having both joiints. the bones though are sufficiently different from either to demonstrate that the jaw is an intermediate between the two. i.e. one cannot stick a mammalian jaw in a reprile and have it have two joints, since the reptillian skull does not accomodate a double joint, the same is true for the mammal. Furthermore the exactness of these jaws also demonstrates how part of the reprillian jaw slowly evolved into the mammalian ear bones. even though the therapsid has two joints, one of them becomes weaker and becomes better suited to sound transmission (though still not as good as a mammal) then there are all the other examples I gave there, though zou still just saz inconclusive, without ever sazing why. what would be conclusive to you? why do you hold that standard? what is inconclusive about the current fossil record?

because of the insistance by YECs that kinds are all uniquely created. note that they seem to be uniquely created complete with all the errors in them too, from the passage of the recurent laryngeal nerve through to ERVs.
but what we have here is a completely unique adult breeding form. caterpillars cannot breed, so the comparison is irrelevant. you claimed that salamanders cannot make fishy creatures, I refuted that claim, that is all.

Why can't it be fuzzy? Who set this rule? Were the animals listed someplace and I missed it? The theory leaves some room for fuzziness which is why there can be many different threads of the same theory, for example, the YEC.

I was making a point about deductive reasoning and also trying to illustrate that science is not limited to watching a test tube.

You are correct, we do not know where 100% of the fossils are therefore we cannot be 100% sure. And that is why science is not math. It's based on an accumlation of evidence not a totality of evidence.

I can assure you that if a scientist discovered a chicken in the same relative geologic timeframe as a trilobite, evolution would be pretty much out the door. That scientist would also be as famous as any scientist since, well, Darwin.

But that hasn't happened. Not to say that it could never happen. But all the evidence found points the other way. That life grew from simple to complex and these changes were caused by natural selection. Evidence that is seen over and over and over and over again.

Nothing is ever sure, but why argue from incredulity? We could also posit that since we can't actually see gravity at work (only its effect) that things are attracted to each other because gangs of angels are pushing them around. But why would we when we continue to see evidence that tells us something else?

I didn't know you were the fraud inspector, I do appologize. I thought that scientific claims were open to all scientists to examin for fraud, not left to only one or two people to determine. And BTW, the very nature of a good fraud is that it looks authentic. So we then find that the open minded E does not have to examine supporting evidence for fraud, but when we are talking about C, nothing can be assumed evidence, only fraud. Is this really the statement you want to go by? How does this statement allow for communication or a seeking after the truth? I tell you that I have heard that the evidence was fraudulant and you ask me why I don't believe it to be conclusive? Come now, if I presented you evidence that irrifutably proven a world wide flood, evidence that some claim as fraudulant, would you automatically believe it as evidence? NO, why? because of the report that it was fraudulant. There is not other explaination needed! It is inconclusive evidence!

Now it is starting to make sense, you still believe that C is YEC only. I think your arguements would benefit from going back a few posts to the discussion about C vs. YEC.

Again, I think you are misunderstanding the TOC and need to look at the theory again. YEC is an old idea, an old theory based on the biblical theory as put forth in Gen.

Here is the problem: We have discovered many thousands of dinosaur fossils. Every single one dates older than 65 million years old. We have discovered many thousands of hominid (human and near-human) fossils. Every one of them dates less than 8 million years old. Now how can you explain that? The only likely explanation is that dinosaurs lived millions of years before hominids. Do you accept that conclusion?

Okay, step 2. We have found many hominind fossils of different species. Every Australopithecus africanus, for instance, is 3-2 million years old. Every Australopithecus robustus is 2-1.5 milllion years old. Every Homo sapiens--including you and me--is less than 500,000 years old. (See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html.) Can we not make the obvious conclusion that these creatures lived at different times?

Okay, step 3: You have been shown a chart on this thread that shows that the skulls of hominids progressed and became more human-like with time. How do you explain that? You have no explanation, do you?

That is the problem. The data fits with evolution. Creationism cannot explain this data, can it?

Actually, I have several possible theories to this,
1. the most unlikely, is incorrect dating. This could be anything from human error to error in methods, and as already stated, unlikely, but none the less possible.

2. If the dinosaurs were extinct long before man, their bones would have been preserved before man's. It is hard to preserve a moving target in other words.

3. Mirgration, it is possible that Man migrated to the area after dinosaurs were in that area. This could explain a lot of the discrepencies in the fossil record. Add the possible climatic changes, and a whole lot could be explained.

This is just off the post of my head, and 3 would be the most probable. Though it does not answer all the questions, it would answer many of them and given the inconclusive nature of the evidence, leaves open room for speculation.

I didn't know you were the fraud inspector, I do appologize. I thought that scientific claims were open to all scientists to examin for fraud, not left to only one or two people to determine. And BTW, the very nature of a good fraud is that it looks authentic. So we then find that the open minded E does not have to examine supporting evidence for fraud, but when we are talking about C, nothing can be assumed evidence, only fraud. Is this really the statement you want to go by? How does this statement allow for communication or a seeking after the truth? I tell you that I have heard that the evidence was fraudulant and you ask me why I don't believe it to be conclusive? Come now, if I presented you evidence that irrifutably proven a world wide flood, evidence that some claim as fraudulant, would you automatically believe it as evidence? NO, why? because of the report that it was fraudulant. There is not other explaination needed! It is inconclusive evidence!

Now it is starting to make sense, you still believe that C is YEC only. I think your arguements would benefit from going back a few posts to the discussion about C vs. YEC.
because this is the claim that the creationist makes against evolution i.e. life cannot have a common ancestor because all kinds were created independently.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding the TOC and need to look at the theory again. YEC is an old idea, an old theory based on the biblical theory as put forth in Gen.

No historical accounts, since history is composed by people, and dogs and cats have been in existence at least as long as people, likely longer.

No, this is where your weakness on scientific method is showing up again. Remember that scientific method is a technique used to generate explanations of observations. It is not used to speculate about what has NOT been observed.

Now, science is very much aware that we have not observed everything there is to observe, in the fossil record, or in the rest of nature. That is why scientific theories are held to be provisional.

The aim of a theory is to provide the best possible explanation of what HAS BEEN observed.

If and when a canid fossil over 70 million years old is found---then and only then do we need a theory to explain that observation.

Science does not reject theories on the speculative basis that some evidence might show up in the next century to invalidate it.

It only rejects theories which are falsified by currently known data. And it continues to work with theories which match currently known data.

So, your objection is based on wishful thinking that maybe, someday, a fossil will be found to invalidate TOE. Science does not operate on the basis of such wishful thinking, but on the basis of the evidence we CAN observe.

On the basis of the evidence we CAN observe, there was a time (I'm not sure of the details, but I would guess around 55 to 70 million years ago---maybe more recently) when there were neither cats nor dogs. But there were other mammals, mammals which do not exist today. (Large mammals do not appear until after the extinction of the dinosaurs, but smaller rodent and shrew-like mammals are found earlier.)

Well, at least you acknowledge that it is possible. That's the most important step. Showing that it is plausible is the next task for the TOE

And if cats and dogs have a common ancestor, then their respective original species were in the same family. A species does not produce daughter species in different families.

Thanks. At least you have now said openly that you think creationism is a more valid theory. However, you have not yet shown why you think this, or why any one else should..

Now, when you say it is more likely that the species existed as separate species from the beginning of creation, are we still speaking only cats and dogs, or are you saying that all species were separate creations from the beginning of creation?

Also, do you think it more likely that all species were created at once, within a relatively short period of time, or that they were created at different times over the whole history of the earth?

erm, no we don't.

of course if you could fit and feed all the animals, you still have a problem of a 450 foot long keeless, wooden boat with no steel reiniforcement being sloshed around in the midst of the "heavens opening" and "fountains of the deep erupting".