Why evolution isn't scientific

[xianghua]

This doesn't present a problem for evolution.

this is the problem actually.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

if we will find such a bear we can say the same: "It may be evidence that bears evolved earlier than previously thought". no difference. and what do you mean by "acceptable timeframe"? 30 my? 50? 100?

"If"? Have you found such a bear? If not, your argument is unsupported.

You really don't understand this subject, do you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

this is the problem actually.

Except it isn't.

 

[Kylie]

if we will find such a bear we can say the same: "It may be evidence that bears evolved earlier than previously thought". no difference. and what do you mean by "acceptable timeframe"? 30 my? 50? 100?

There we go with that IF again...

And you seem to miss the point. Bears, according to evolution, could NOT have evolved that early. Pushing back tetrapods a few million years is a very different thing to pushing back bears by 200 million years.

 

[xianghua]

"If"? Have you found such a bear? If not, your argument is unsupported.

so you basically agree that if we will find such a bear it will not be a problem for evolution?. this is my point actually.

 

[xianghua]

And you seem to miss the point. Bears, according to evolution, could NOT have evolved that early.

yes they can. if we will find such a bear fossil. so it depend on the fossils and not on what evolution predict.

Pushing back tetrapods a few million years is a very different thing to pushing back bears by 200 million years.

and your evidence for that claim is?...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so you basically agree that if we will find such a bear it will not be a problem for evolution?. this is my point actually.

I did not say that. You're being dishonest again. Doesn't it bother you that you have to rely on dishonesty to try to make a point?

 

[Kylie]

yes they can. if we will find such a bear fossil. so it depend on the fossils and not on what evolution predict.

But we have no such fossils.

You can't claim that a 200 million year old bear fossil disproves evolution if there are no 200 million year old bear fossils.

and your evidence for that claim is?...

Because a few million years is very different to a few hundred million years.

Seriously, can you count?

 

[Kylie]

so you basically agree that if we will find such a bear it will not be a problem for evolution?. this is my point actually.

If we find a 200 million year old bear fossil, it would indeed be a problem for evolution.

Unfortunately for you, such fossils do not exist, and evolution is fine.

 

[xianghua]

I did not say that. You're being dishonest again. Doesn't it bother you that you have to rely on dishonesty to try to make a point?

if so what is your position? do you agree that if we will find a 200my old bear fossil evolution will be false? if so you dont make any sense.

 

[xianghua]

Because a few million years is very different to a few hundred million years.

so you agree that we can push a creature evolution by say 20-30 my but not say 100 my?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

if so what is your position? do you agree that if we will find a 200my old bear fossil evolution will be false? if so you dont make any sense.

My position is that there is no 200my old bear. Have you got one?

 

[Kylie]

so you agree that we can push a creature evolution by say 20-30 my but not say 100 my?

I have told you that you can push it by as much as you want PROVIDED YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE FOR IT.

In other words, if you find a 200 million year old bear fossil, then that is something that will have to be explained. And if evolution can't explain it, then evolution will be in trouble.

But so far all you have presented is your fantasy about old bear fossils. You will have to produce something real if you want anyone to take you seriously.

 

[xianghua]

My position is that there is no 200my old bear. Have you got one?

but its irrelevant to the question if evolution is scientific or not.

 

[xianghua]

In other words, if you find a 200 million year old bear fossil, then that is something that will have to be explained. And if evolution can't explain it, then evolution will be in trouble.

but i just showed you that evolution can explain everything. this is the problem.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

but its irrelevant to the question if evolution is scientific or not.

No, it is entirely relevant. Unless you have an actual fossil to support your idea of a modern bear existing 200 million years before it should, then your claim that evolution isn't scientific falls flat on its behind.
Your OP is just idiotic.

 

[Speedwell]

but i just showed you that evolution can explain everything. this is the problem.

If you can show with real evidence that a species existed before its supposed parent species came into existence then evolution would not be able to explain it.

 

[Aman777]

You really don't understand this subject, do you?

Of course not. What he needs is for some all knowing science nerd to tell him since they seem to know more than God. So blast away and exhibit your superior knowledge.

 

[xianghua]

If you can show with real evidence that a species existed before its supposed parent species came into existence then evolution would not be able to explain it.

but there is no such a way to prove such a situation even if it was real. this is why evolution isnt testable.

 

[xianghua]

No, it is entirely relevant. Unless you have an actual fossil to support your idea of a modern bear existing 200 million years before it should, then your claim that evolution isn't scientific falls flat on its behind.
Your OP is just idiotic.

but i already showed here other case that is very similar to this theoretical bear case. and as we have seen- no problem for evolution. so the bear case isnt different.