When did evolution begin?

[Oncedeceived]

Along with the measurements of the features in those fossils, yes.

So it is not objective evidence without the measurements of the features of those fossils?

 

[Loudmouth]

So it is not objective evidence without the measurements of the features of those fossils?

Correct. You need an objective method so that you have something more than just subjective appearances.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it was.

Denial isn't an argument. Please address the evidence instead of ignoring it.

Give specific evidence for step by step evolution for the complexity shown in molecular machines.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Read the creation science literature where they say "science" says, and then read the actual scientific literature cited and see if it says the same thing they say it does. The creationist literature is full of such examples.

Who are these scientists? Give me one example of these scientists citing literature and lying about what it says. Please stay in the area of biology as I have said I am not educated in your area.

 

[Loudmouth]

Give specific evidence for step by step evolution for the complexity shown in molecular machines.

I gave you a step by step evolution of a complex system. Please stop ignoring it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who are these scientists? Give me one example of these scientists citing literature and lying about what it says. Please stay in the area of biology as I have said I am not educated in your area.

http://www.angelfire.com/alt2/digicam/mammoth.html

 

[Oncedeceived]

We have been discussing Kent Hovind's lies about radiocarbon dating in other threads.

http://www.angelfire.com/alt2/digicam/mammoth.html

Is Kent Hovind a trained and educated scientist?

 

[Loudmouth]

Is Kent Hovind a trained and educated scientist?

That's the claim he makes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Correct. You need an objective method so that you have something more than just subjective appearances.

You would agree that when these skulls are found they are chosen based on their appearance to test and use those measuring applications upon...correct? They are seeing something they recognize to be important in the evolutionary timeline of humans correct?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's the claim he makes.

His credentials are on the web for all to see. Does he make the claim he is an educated and trained scientist in any field of science?

 

[Oncedeceived]

http://www.angelfire.com/alt2/digicam/mammoth.html

Again, has Hovind been educated and trained in a scientific field of any kind?

 

[Loudmouth]

You would agree that when these skulls are found they are chosen based on their appearance to test and use those measuring applications upon...correct?

Correct. They then apply multivariate analysis on actual measurements to confirm that they belong in one group or another. They use objective methodologies to confirm their hypothesis.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I gave you a step by step evolution of a complex system. Please stop ignoring it.

What if someone asked you to give evidence for the evolution from a common ancestor that split into man and chimp; would you give them the evidence of the mammalian ear?

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, has Hovind been educated and trained in a scientific field of any kind?

He claims he was.

We can find other scientists if you like. Would you at least admit that Hovind lied about the science?

 

[Loudmouth]

What if someone asked you to give evidence for the evolution from a common ancestor that split into man and chimp; would you give them the evidence of the mammalian ear?

You are still ignoring the evidence I have already presented. Trying to change the subject is a desperate move.

 

[RickG]

Give specific evidence for step by step evolution for the complexity shown in molecular machines.

It is not needed to show evolution. The previous post I made demonstrates this. If evolution were false we would see fossils of all life forms in all layers of geologic strata. The fact is we find them only in the geologic strata where we would expect to see them if evolution were true.

 

[RickG]

Again, has Hovind been educated and trained in a scientific field of any kind?

He has claimed to have taught high school science for 15 years. Every time he is asked where, he gets all huffy and will not talk about any of his claimed teaching experience, which obviously doesn't exist. Nor can he produce any academic background in any field of science whatsoever.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Correct. They then apply multivariate analysis on actual measurements to confirm that they belong in one group or another. They use objective methodologies to confirm their hypothesis.

Ok. They already have an appearance of being in one group or another. The evidence is the skulls and the testing and measuring then confirm that appearance when they fit in one or the other...at least in theory. The same is true for the appearance of design...it is either produced as it appears by design or by something that produced that appearance. The tests and measuring of the systems/structures/features and functions are compared to the systems/structures/features and functions to those of human design. There are two "groups" that this design evidence must be tested by to confirm which it belongs in. The claim is that evolution produces the design evidence that appears in these systems but there is no evidence given by which to determine or confirm it belongs in this group. However, there is evidence...human design which uses similar systems/structures/features and functions and has the known capability and mind to produce these systems which shows the same in those systems that have the same in nature. Mind creates the machines, factories and applications that we see in human design and we recognize those same things in nature which supports that design a product of mind is behind them.

This goes even further than just the apparent design we see in the organisms and their inner workings. Evolution is not a product of mind according to TOE. TOE is considered to be mindless, having no goals or plans with no direction or sight for anything other than what can be a benefit to the organism to survive. The mindfulness, purpose and structural design that these molecular machines possess is not explained by the premises of mindlessness with no plan or goal or direction in the production of them if evolution produced them. Take this a step farther and the lack of evidence for simpler forms giving rise to these purposeful and goal producing systems seems to deny evolution as the creator of the design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is not needed to show evolution. The previous post I made demonstrates this. If evolution were false we would see fossils of all life forms in all layers of geologic strata. The fact is we find them only in the geologic strata where we would expect to see them if evolution were true.

Evolution being true is not evidence that evolution produced the design we see in molecular machines.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok. They already have an appearance of being in one group or another.

Right. That subjective finding is then verified using an objective methodology.

The same is true for the appearance of design...it is either produced as it appears by design or by something that produced that appearance.

Where is the objective methodology?

The tests and measuring of the systems/structures/features and functions are compared to the systems/structures/features and functions to those of human design.

References?