Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[VirOptimus]

You're fixing to run into the "Science proves nothing" claim.

A debate always good for a laugh, as well as an obvious cop out to make it appear evolution cannot be proven but only because they can't.

How ignorant.

 

[VirOptimus]

We don't know if I'm wrong....this is the best answer I could come to....It seems to me that we're just not sure.


Here's an article from the New York Times..

In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight. He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims. Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.

Not only has the fossil record failed, but findings of modern scientists have made general evolutionary theory even less tenable. In ''Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,'' for example, Michael Denton methodically analyzes a wealth of evidence that challenges this theory. His subjects include the failure of homology (homologous structures not being represented by homologous genes nor embryonic development); the typological nature of microbiology, and problems associated with chance as a directive force, in addition to the lack of a supportive fossil record.

Contrary to popular belief, many people disagree with the theory of general evolution, and the idea that all opponents base their views on religious belief is groundless. Michael Denton is neither a creationist nor an evangelical Christian, and his book is one of several to challenge evolution on scientific terms. Moreover, having religious beliefs does not preclude the ability to reason scientifically. Many great scientists - Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier and Louis Pasteur, to name a few -were devoutly religious.

source: Theory of Evolution Has Never Been Proved

We know you are wrong.

And, an opinionpiece? Really? Thats laughable.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Mutations —> evolution.

The toe explsins the mechanics of what will spread and how.

How ignorant.

Hilarious...just the kind of "detailed" info with no backing that you've been throwing at us throughout the thread. IOW, ya' got nothing.

I guess this means we won't be getting that proof, right? lol

 

[pitabread]

Could you please pull all that together for us so I can see if the explanation works for me? In all honesty, I would not expect you to educate me, but for the life of me, no one else has been able to do that, and I've never been able to find such a thing...anywhere.

You've been pointed to lots of resources including full-fledged (and free!) university courses on the subject of evolution. You always thumb your nose at such material though. In fact, I believe you described such course material as a "waste of time".

To complain that people can't educate you or that you can't find material... that's just being disingenuous.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You've been pointed to lots of resources including full-fledged (and free!) university courses on the subject of evolution. You always thumb your nose at such material though. In fact, I believe you described such course material as a "waste of time".

To complain that people can't educate you or that you can't find material... that's just being disingenuous.

A half truth, remember, I wanted material that would prove evolution, but you just happened to leave that part out, making it a lie and me not being disingenuous after all.

Yet you fail to mention why I told you it was a waste of time. Half truths, the way of the evolutionists. Why, because that's one trick they use to make the unaware believe evolution, because they have nothing else.

Will those courses prove evolution to me?

 

[pitabread]

A half truth, remember, I wanted material that would prove evolution, but you just happened to leave that part out, making it a lie and me not being disingenuous after all.

Understanding how and why the theory of evolution is supported is part of an education on the subject. We've all shown you where to get this information. You refuse to do your part of making the effort to consume it.

Nobody can force you to get an education. You have to decide that for yourself.

Yet you fail to mention why I told you it was a waste of time. Half truths, the way of the evolutionists. Why, because that's one trick they use to make the unaware believe evolution, because they have nothing else.

You're judging material that you've never even looked at.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Understanding how and why the theory of evolution is supported is part of an education on the subject. We've all shown you where to get this information. You refuse to do your part of making the effort to consume it.

Nobody can force you to get an education. You have to decide that for yourself.



You're judging material that you've never even looked at.

So no answer to my question? Oh well.

 

[pitabread]

So no answer to my question? Oh well.

You mean this one: Will those courses prove evolution to me?

Insofar as convincing you that evolution is a real phenomenon, that the theory of evolution is a valid science, and that it is supported by evidence, I would hope so. But on the other hand, only you can be in charge of what you accept as valid.

At the very least, I think just having a basic understanding of what the theory of evolution is and how it relates to biology as a whole is useful information. It might lead to more interesting and productive discussions around here.

 

[Steve Petersen]

We don't know if I'm wrong....this is the best answer I could come to....It seems to me that we're just not sure.


Here's an article from the New York Times..

In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight. He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims. Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.

Not only has the fossil record failed, but findings of modern scientists have made general evolutionary theory even less tenable. In ''Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,'' for example, Michael Denton methodically analyzes a wealth of evidence that challenges this theory. His subjects include the failure of homology (homologous structures not being represented by homologous genes nor embryonic development); the typological nature of microbiology, and problems associated with chance as a directive force, in addition to the lack of a supportive fossil record.

Contrary to popular belief, many people disagree with the theory of general evolution, and the idea that all opponents base their views on religious belief is groundless. Michael Denton is neither a creationist nor an evangelical Christian, and his book is one of several to challenge evolution on scientific terms. Moreover, having religious beliefs does not preclude the ability to reason scientifically. Many great scientists - Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier and Louis Pasteur, to name a few -were devoutly religious.

source: Theory of Evolution Has Never Been Proved

An article about evolution from a cardiologist. What makes him an authority on evolution?

https://health.usnews.com/doctors/william-wassynger-123602

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Don't evolutionists claim that the fossil order has supposedly "confirmed" Evolution? If that is the case, then you should be able to demonstrate how Evolution theory would inform you of the expected fossil succession, without prior knowledge of it.

(e.g. we'll expect to find the higher mammals in only the upper rock layers because _______, and we'll expect to find hominids in only the highest rock layers because _______)

Evolutionists can't provide these reasons, because their theory does not inform them of where to expect such fossil groups without already knowing which rock layers contain those fossils. They can only attach an ad-hoc story to already-known fossil orders within the geologic column.

Yet at the same time evolutioists will deceptively claim the specific fossil order "confirmed" their theory.

I love that you didn't answer my question but instead repeat a claim that has been shown to be in error by several posters in this very thread. Tiktaalik is a prime example of a prediction being made. And before you go repeating your wrong claim, the rock layer Tiktaalik was found in was not one where "fishapods" had been found before. That's the whole point of the prediction - Shubin basically said we should be able to find a transitional fossil at a certain age. They went looking in rocks of that age and guess what? Shubin's prediction was right.

 

[Gene2memE]

We don't know if I'm wrong....this is the best answer I could come to....It seems to me that we're just not sure.

Here's an article from the New York Times..

Source failure.

It's not an article. It's not even an opinion piece from a relevant expert. That's a letter to the editor, by a cardiologist (from 1989...), responding to Biblical literalism getting kicked out of text books.

Why should anyone give any weight to Dr Wassyner's utterances? Particularly when it contains howlers such as these, that demonstrate a spectacular lack of understanding of the ToE:

Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.

The process of general evolution could theoretically be reproduced through experimentation, but it never has been. Though speciation has been demonstrated in laboratories, no event beyond speciation has ever been demonstrated. Charles Darwin clearly delineated the differences between speciation and general evolution, and noted that the support for general evolution would have to come from the fossil record.​

 

[Astrophile]

Sure there is.

Since evolution has not been proven since Darwin's
Evolution of the Species from about 150 years ago,,,,I'd say the scientific community is starting to accept that it may not be a sustainable theory.

Of course it could be true....
This thread is going to turn into creationist propoganda and whatever the alternative is.

In that case I'll leave immediately, if not sooner.

What I'm saying is that all the early theories of science were proven within this amount of time because they were TRUE....WHY isn't evolution being proven?

I have said this before, but I may as well say it again; it depends on what you mean by 'prove'.

In the strict sense, no scientific theory can ever be proved; it is always possible that a new observational or experimental fact will overturn even a well-established theory. The classic example is the anomalous precession of the orbit of Mercury, which could not be explained by Newton's theory of gravitation and therefore showed that the theory was wrong.

However, a successful scientific theory is one that explains a wide range of observed facts. For example, the theory of evolution explains the facts of genetics, anatomy, embryology, biogeography, palaeontology, and probably other branches of biology. A new theory that is intended to supplant the old theory must be at least as successful in explaining the facts as its predecessor. 'God did it' is not a satisfactory explanation; God could just as well have done it in a different way. Also, where a scientific theory has been disproved, it has always been replaced by another naturalistic theory; for example, Newton's theory of gravitation was replaced by Einstein's general theory of relativity. I do not know of any example of a naturalistic scientific theory being replaced by a supernatural one. A new general theory of biology would almost certainly require the transmutation of species, and you would therefore find it just as unacceptable as the present theory of evolution.

However, I would guess that what you are saying is not that not every alternative scientific theory to the present synthetic theory of evolution has been disproved and that therefore the present theory could be superseded by some other scientific theory (e.g. the inheritance of acquired characteristics), but that it has not been proved that God did not miraculously create the universe in its present form in six days while giving it the appearance of a long history with living things having evolved. This is true, but one could say the same thing about any scientific theory. For example, nobody can prove that planets, comets, binary stars, etc. are not being pushed along their orbits by invisible angels. However, general relativity and Newton's theory of gravitation are mathematically more tractable, and they allow astronomers to predict observable events, so for scientific purposes we prefer to use these theories, while leaving the existence of angels an open question. In the same way, biologists find that theories of evolution explain the biological facts satisfactorily, and so prefer to use these theories in their work, while leaving it an open question whether living things have really evolved or whether God created them with the appearance of having evolved.

 

[Astrophile]

I believe in micro evolution...changes within a species due to need. I do not believe an animal can change into a different animal. I do not believe single cell life in a pount could turn into a fish, and a fish into a human....no matter how many years it would take.

Do you think that over a few million years an ape could turn into a different kind of ape?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Insofar as convincing you that evolution is a real phenomenon,

The latest in dodge here is to claim evolution is a fact then point to some virus that reproduces itself, or basically nothing to do with the supposed full scale evolution that was being discussed, is that what your doing there?

After many discussions here with people supposedly in the know, once we got into the details, their claims fell apart, and as I recall, pretty much right off the bat. This happened a few times, with exactly the same outcome. No one needed a course to see where it fell apart and why. But go ahead try to use your default excuses when you run out of answers, as you essentially have here and find a way to blame your adversary, that's nothing new.

Why don't you simply start explaining it to us, and I'll show you what I mean about it falling apart. I mean you do have all the necessary knowledge, correct? That way is much more simple and faster, as we have your knowledge right there to help us understand. If you don't have the knowledge, we can wait till you get it/look it up, or if there's another reason you won't do it, please explain so we can try to get past it.

Seems fair enough to me as well as an effective way to put it to rest, and beats the heck out of the stalling that often follows the request.

 

[Astrophile]

it is a proven fact that the earth rotates around the sun and the sun stays still.

I advise you to look at Creation Homepage before you say that it is a proven fact. (Of course, I think that Bowden is wrong, but he probably makes as good a case for geocentricity as most creationists make against evolution.)

 

[Kenny'sID]

In the strict sense, no scientific theory can ever be proved; it is always possible that a new observational or experimental fact will overturn even a well-established theory.

That's a complete cop out and one that's been tried several times here. I think some people just came up with that junk because they couldn't prove it. If your backing for that is things change, just prove it for the moment, like the old days when science proved pretty much everything, that's what it was for. Prove it for the moment and if things change we'll make a note of that, so simple. But instead of doing that very sensible thing, they use what you are saying in order to not to try to prove it at all...because they cannot.

So you see, that obvious excuse simply doesn't hold up, and it's pretty much an insult to those of even average intelligence to try it on us.

The classic example is the anomalous precession of the orbit of Mercury, which could not be explained by Newton's theory of gravitation and therefore showed that the theory was wrong.

There are exceptions to every rule, and again, if something changes, it changes, but that's far from a reason not to prove it..

It was easy to see from the start, nothing was going to come out of the challenge...it rarely does. No one will accept it because you all know what will happen.

 

[Astrophile]

Don't evolutionists claim that the fossil order has supposedly "confirmed" Evolution? If that is the case, then you should be able to demonstrate how Evolution theory would inform you of the expected fossil succession, without prior knowledge of it.

(e.g. we'll expect to find the higher mammals in only the upper rock layers because _______, and we'll expect to find hominids in only the highest rock layers because _______)

Evolutionists can't provide these reasons, because their theory does not inform them of where to expect such fossil groups without already knowing which rock layers contain those fossils. They can only attach an ad-hoc story to already-known fossil orders within the geologic column.

Yet at the same time evolutionists will deceptively claim the specific fossil order "confirmed" their theory.

As a matter of fact, the fact 'that sedimentary rock strata contain fossilized flora and fauna, and that these fossils succeed each other vertically in a specific, reliable order that can be identified over wide horizontal distances' (Principle of faunal succession - Wikipedia) had been observed, for example by William Smith (1769-1839) in Britain and by Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) in France, during the first decade of the 19th century, before the publication of the first rational theory of evolution (by Lamarck in 1809), and while Charles Darwin was still an infant. This principle established that animals and plants had changed during geological time, although it was not known whether these changes were due to repeated extinctions and re-creations or to descent with modification. Thus, historically speaking, the faunal succession was a known fact that had to be explained by any theory of the history of life rather than new evidence that confirmed the theory of evolution.

 

[Astrophile]

That's a complete cop out and one that's been tried several times here. I think some people just came up with that junk because they couldn't prove it. If your backing for that is things change, just prove it for the moment, like the old days when science proved pretty much everything, that's what it was for. Prove it for the moment and if things change we'll make a note of that, so simple. But instead of doing that very sensible thing, they use what you are saying in order to not to try to prove it at all...because they cannot.

So you see, that obvious excuse simply doesn't hold up, and it's pretty much an insult to those of even average intelligence to try it on us.



There are exceptions to every rule, and again, if something changes, it changes, but that's far from a reason not to prove it..

It was easy to see from the start, nothing was going to come out of the challenge...it rarely does. No one will accept it because you all know what will happen.

Would you like to reply to the third and fourth paragraphs of my post?

The third paragraph deals with the fact that any successful scientific theory explains a wide range of observed facts, and that any new theory that is supposed to supplant it must provide at least as good an explanation of these facts as its predecessor. If you want to disprove evolution you will need to present a naturalistic theory that does not include the transmutation of species but still explains the fact of biology as well as the present theory of evolution does.

The fourth paragraph goes to the essential point. Creationists are not saying that the present theory of evolution is unproven and therefore it may eventually be superseded by another naturalistic scientific theory, which is true; they are saying that the scientific theory of evolution is unproven and therefore we should adopt the religious doctrine of the creation of the universe in six days, which is false. I leave it to the Christian contributors to discuss with you whether the doctrines of Biblical inerrancy and the literal interpretation of Genesis are necessary parts of Christianity.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hilarious...just the kind of "detailed" info with no backing that you've been throwing at us throughout the thread. IOW, ya' got nothing.

I guess this means we won't be getting that proof, right? lol

If you want detail, take a course. Im not responsible for your education.

You ignoring physical reality wont make it go away.

 

[Astrophile]

You have to explain to me how all this came from nothing and what was JUST BEFORE the big bang.
Then you have to explain how this much energy didn't just collapse on itself like it was supposed to but started to expand instead.

You appear to have a very naive idea of cosmology in which at one time there was nothing (i.e. the universe did not exist) and at a later time the universe did exist. However, so far as I understand it, this idea is mistaken. Time itself is 'something'; space-time is an essential component of the universe, and cannot be separated it. Time came into existence with the universe itself, so there was no 'BEFORE' the big bang.

If you actually want answers to your questions, you ought to read some books on cosmology, such as The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow; A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss; The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose; Our Mathematical Universe by Max Tegmark; Calculating the Cosmos by Ian Stewart; and Universal: A Journey through the Universe, by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. If you read these books you will probably still be confused, but you will be confused on a higher level.

I don't object to your being ignorant of cosmology; it's a very difficult subject, and I don't know much about it myself. What I do object to is your implication that the fact that we don't understand the origin of the universe proves that a god (and specifically your God) exists and that therefore we should reject most of science and other forms of learning in favour of the Christian Bible.