proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

Again, there is no defined 'creation model' and consequently no predictions. You're just making this up.

creation model doesn't predict that we should find evidence for creation? realy?

 

[TBDude65]

creation model doesn't predict that we should find evidence for creation? realy?

Can you provide us with a reference for what this "creation model" is?

 

[xianghua]

You keep repeating something that has been explained to you as not being accurate.

Third time (just from me) - The fusion that produced chromosome 2 in humans is not evidence FOR common descent, it is an explanation as to why humans and chimps, while having descended from a common ancestor, have differing karyotypes.

Clear now?

that was "allandavid" claim. not mine. so im not the one you will need to convince.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Everyone gets to build their home and when the storms come their work will be tested. If your home ends up in ruin then you have to start all over again.

Of course! How will he feel when he finds out that Ra, the Sun God is the creator of the universe, and not Allah...?

 

[Ophiolite]

The bible got something right!

Does this spell the end for atheistic engineering practices?

No. It just confirms that you should never build your home between a rock and a hard place, but on a rock or a hard place.

 

[tas8831]

that was "allandavid" claim. not mine. so im not the one you will need to convinve.

And yet you keep repeating it.

 

[tas8831]

creation model doesn't predict that we should find evidence for creation? realy?

That is like claiming 'evolution predicts we should find evidence for evolution'

So ambiguous as to be meaningless.

One prediction premised on evolution was that a transitional form between aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates should be found in a certain age range, and that is where one was found.

 

[pitabread]

creation model doesn't predict that we should find evidence for creation? realy?

I'm saying that you don't have a 'creation model' in the first place.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't know I've never actually heard him speak audibly.

Telepathically? If so, do you use DMT?

 

[rjs330]

You keep repeating something that has been explained to you as not being accurate.

Third time (just from me) - The fusion that produced chromosome 2 in humans is not evidence FOR common descent, it is an explanation as to why humans and chimps, while having descended from a common ancestor, have differing karyotypes.

Clear now?

Yes clear that an assumption and supposition is made that its evolution. Our adaption is that it was common design.

 

[rjs330]

Fossils "suddenly" appear because of numerous reasons:
- some environments have little to no deposition associated with them, making it nearly impossible for any individuals to become buried and preserved. So when we do find them in these environments (such as forest ecosystems), the appearance is "sudden" because the opportunity for fossilization is not constant
- the probability of fossilization is therefore dependent on the preservation potential of the environment and the sediments that record it, but the probability of preservation is also highly dependent upon the organism. Some organisms that are entirely (or almost entirely) soft-bodied, have very low preservation potential. This is why the fossil record of jellyfish is so dismal (and they are far from the only group that we have little or no fossil record for). Our best fossil records are, by a wide margin, concentrated on macroinvertebrates, primarily the brachiopods, clams, gastropods, ammonoids, nautiloids, crinoids, sea urchins, corals, and some arthropods like trilobites (not so much for crustaceans as only the claws are reinforced with calcite whereas the whole carapace is reinforced with calcite for trilobites)
- sometimes the "sudden" appearance has more to do with when and how we sample a locality than anything else. Some units might be relatively recently (geologic units) discovered, or only recently did it become feasible to launch a collecting expedition to search through the strata (such as for Tiktaalik when Neil Shubin and his colleagues traveled to northern Canada, above the Arctic Circle)
- an additional reason for "sudden" appearances are the the taxa are rare. Meaning that when we sample them in the fossil record, we only ever find a limited number of them
- and the last significant issue we encounter (that comes to my mind) is that sedimentary systems are constantly experiencing erosion and remobilization of sediments. So even if something is preserved in the rock record, it might be subsequently removed via erosion and/or diagenesis


What you are referring to is what we call the Completeness of the Fossil Record, and it has been an important field of study in paleontology for decades now. In addition to this, the subject is also closely related to the study of Taphonomy (which is the study of how and why organisms become preserved as fossils).

But none of that is evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. It's an explanation how we got fossils and how many we find. It is not evidence of evolution. In fact it's an argument against the strength of the theory.

 

[rjs330]

Telepathically? If so, do you use DMT?

Go ahead and poke fun. That's okay.

 

[HitchSlap]

Go ahead and poke fun. That's okay.

It's a legitimate line of questioning. You claimed god "told" you things. If this is the case, you should be able to answer some basic questions about your discourse. That you cannot, is quite telling.

 

[rjs330]

It's a legitimate line of questioning. You claimed god "told" you things. If this is the case, you should be able to answer some basic questions about your discourse. That you cannot, is quite telling.

You were poking fun and not really seeking. When you have a genuine interest we can talk. But your motives are clear.

It's a legitimate line of questioning. You claimed god "told" you things. If this is the case, you should be able to answer some basic questions about your discourse. That you cannot, is quite telling.

Are you really seeking? The question is fine, but it's not really a question when you poke fun at the same time. I certainly can answer the question.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

 

[TBDude65]

But none of that is evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. It's an explanation how we got fossils and how many we find. It is not evidence of evolution. In fact it's an argument against the strength of the theory.

I never said the completeness of the fossil record is evidence of evolution. I listed several reasons why it’s incomplete. And no, it’s not an argument against evolution at all.

Independent lineages of fossils do support evolution.

 

[HitchSlap]

You were poking fun and not really seeking. When you have a genuine interest we can talk. But your motives are clear.

Are you really seeking? The question is fine, but it's not really a question when you poke fun at the same time. I certainly can answer the question.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Serious question: how does god tell you things?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Of course! How will he feel when he finds out that Ra, the Sun God is the creator of the universe, and not Allah...?

Have you ever heard of the Bible?

 

[joshua 1 9]

neither relevant or interesting.

The Bible is very relevant if your interested or not.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Serious question: how does god tell you things?

God gives us wisdom, knowledge and understanding. The Holy Spirit is our Teacher to guide us and to lead us into the truth. We do not need man to teach us.

 

[HitchSlap]

Have you ever heard of the Bible?

Yes.