Did we disprove evolution yet?

Status
Not open for further replies.

plindboe

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,965
157
46
In my pants
✟10,498.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
em·pir·i·cal (
ebreve.gif
m-pîr
prime.gif
ibreve.gif
-k
schwa.gif
l) adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

em·pir
prime.gif
i·cal·ly
adv."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

The Judaeo/Christian God is not verifiable by by means of observation or experiment, or at least never has been so verified, as far as I am aware after nearly ten years on this forum. And it certainly isn't a matter of any practical experience.

:wave:

Did I just Poe you?

Peter :wave:
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,679
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Given that Latimeria chalumnae was only discovered in 1938, I'm not sure how anyone could have thought it was extinct. :confused:
From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Any lobe-finned bony fish of the order Crossopterygii. Members of an extinct suborder are considered to have been the ancestors of land vertebrates. Modern coelacanths (genus Latimeria) are deep-sea fishes with hollow fin spines. They are powerful, heavy-bodied predators, with highly mobile, limblike fins. They average 5 ft (1.5 m) in length and weigh about 100 lbs (45 kg). Coelacanths appeared about 350 million years ago and were thought to have become extinct 80 million years ago until one was caught in 1938 near the southern coast of Africa in the Indian Ocean. A second species was discovered living near Indonesia in 1998.
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:

I recommend reading up on biological classifications (particularly the difference between orders and species) before claiming a specific species was thought to be extinct, when that particular species had never been discovered before.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Creationism’s main appeal is that it is a shallow answer to comfort shallow thinkers. It reinforces comforting religious beliefs. The problem with creationism is that it just isn’t true. It is a false explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
Spoken like a true fundamentalist.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
Given that Latimeria chalumnae was only discovered in 1938, I'm not sure how anyone could have thought it was extinct. :confused:

Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that creationism's been thoroughly eviscerated over the last 200 years.


Of course, in typical theocreo style the thing about the Coelacanth was both factually and grammatically incorrect.

In any case, the crossopterygian fish were fresh water animals (that died out 60 some million yeas ago), where they fossilize readily, and the live species is a rare deep water marine fish from Africa.

Deep water marine fish dont leave fossils. You wont know they exist till you catch one.

Left up to the theocreos, we still would not know they exist.
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
Pete Harcoff
user_online.gif

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

32
Male.gif
Agnostic.gif
CA-Greens.gif
Canada.gif
5years.gif

Join Date: 30th June 2002
Location: Frozen North
Posts: 8,412
Blessings: 2,047,794 [Bless]
Reps: 9,299,538,145,025,500 (power: 9,299,538,145,042)
reputation_off.gif



Originally Posted by AV1611VET
From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
I recommend reading up on biological classifications (particularly the difference between orders and species) before claiming a specific species was thought to be extinct, when that particular species had never been discovered before.
__________________
Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution



That will be biological KINDS, buster.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,679
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I recommend reading up on biological classifications (particularly the difference between orders and species) before claiming a specific species was thought to be extinct, when that particular species had never been discovered before.
If you don't believe the Encyclopedia Britannica, here's Wikipedia:
The coelacanths, which are related to lungfishes and tetrapods, were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

3sigma

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2008
2,339
72
✟3,007.00
Faith
Atheist
Spoken like a true fundamentalist.
No, just spoken like someone who is aware of the facts. Creationism isn’t true. It isn’t in accordance with the actual state of affairs. Creationism is a false explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. It is inconsistent with the facts. The facts show that all life on life was not created fully formed in a few days about 6,000 years ago. There are no facts to show that your God created anything at all or that it even exists. In short, creationism is wrong. It is mistaken and incorrect. If you disagree then show us that creationism is the truth. Show us that the mistaken belief that your God created anything at all or that it even exists is the truth.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,679
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Creationism isn’t true.
God says otherwise.
It isn’t in accordance with the actual state of affairs.
Like phlogiston and Pluto were at one time?

Your 'actual state of affairs' is weak and beggarly by comparison, and changes with the next clipboard to come out.

It is myopic and can take a hike.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,679
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The problem is that it had clearly been falsified. Therefore, no amount of supporting evidence matters.
Then how do you overturn something that has been falsified, according to scientific doctrine?
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
From the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:

I recommend reading up on biological classifications (particularly the difference between orders and species) before claiming a specific species was thought to be extinct, when that particular species had never been discovered before.

If you don't believe the Encyclopedia Britannica, here's Wikipedia:

Forget it. This is clearly over your head.

What's over my head?

Coelacanth 1937 = extinct

Coelacanth 1938 = alive & well

Sometimes I don't know when AVET is kidding with us and when he is serious.

The species you cited was never thought to be extinct. It was only discovered in the 1930s. The order the new species is a member of was thought to be extinct. In reality, the order has continued to evolve, but with much fewer members than in its "glory days," so to speak.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Like phlogiston and Pluto were at one time?

Your 'actual state of affairs' is weak and beggarly by comparison, and changes with the next clipboard to come out.

It is myopic and can take a hike.

Is there any way to get you to stop misusing Pluto as an example? I mean, its not even amusing anymore. It's just kinda sad.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.