A Simple Challenge for an Honest Debate

[Ishmael Borg]

Often I do this by concentrating on things that evolutionists have already falsified. Take horse evolution for example. The old theory was falsified over 40 years ago, but one evolutionist came here and actually tried to defend the old theory of horse evolution with the arguement that they went from small to large and so forth. So I simply presented the new theory to show that the evolutionist who was trying to debate the old theory was wrong.

The only differnece between me and the way a evolutionist would do this is I do not care if I make evolutions look bad. That gets people mad at me.

What is this "new" theory of horse evolution that you presented? Just give me a brief overview. This "new" theory describes horse origins, but not in terms of evolution? How did this new theory invalidate evolution?

 

[Joe Atheist]

Often I do this by concentrating on things that evolutionists have already falsified. Take horse evolution for example. The old theory was falsified over 40 years ago, but one evolutionist came here and actually tried to defend the old theory of horse evolution with the arguement that they went from small to large and so forth. So I simply presented the new theory to show that the evolutionist who was trying to debate the old theory was wrong.

The only differnece between me and the way a evolutionist would do this is I do not care if I make evolutions look bad. That gets people mad at me.

You used a new theory of horse evolution to falsify an old theory of horse evolution?

Is that what you meant by showing "evolutionists to be wrong"?

 

[Tomk80]

What is this "new" theory of horse evolution that you presented? Just give me a brief overview. This "new" theory describes horse origins, but not in terms of evolution? How did this new theory invalidate evolution?

IIRC, everybody agreed that the "old" theory was falsified. That the "old" theory was linear evolution, the "new" theory was a branching tree/bush. The only thing that happened was that John didn't understand the concept of a branching line (in stead of a linear one). John didn't understand that whether one talks of a "bush" or a "tree", the same thing is meant, a branching pattern.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Okay, so I read JohnR7's 7 rules for biblical interpretation. (There are rules? Who knew!)

Here is number 7:

7) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a con- clusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.

The irony nearly blew my computer apart.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

IIRC, everybody agreed that the "old" theory was falsified. That the "old" theory was linear evolution, the "new" theory was a branching tree/bush. The only thing that happened was that John didn't understand the concept of a branching line (in stead of a linear one). John didn't understand that whether one talks of a "bush" or a "tree", the same thing is meant, a branching pattern.

Ohhhhhh. Thanks Tomk80. As I suspected, evo theory hasn't suffered a bit.

 

[JohnR7]

How did this new theory invalidate evolution?

The new theory invalidate the old theory. Yet I have had people on this very board argue the old theory that horses evolved from small to large. That is why more and more I am just dealing with the area of evolutionary theory that evolutionists themselves have falsified. That give me LOTS to work with, because lots of evolutionary theory has been falsified. Also a lot of what people call evolutionary theory is nonsense to begin with and was never accepted by mainstream science as having any validity in the first place. Yet this nonsense pops up all over the place and is peddled as being something it is not.

 

[JohnR7]

(There are rules? Who knew!)

They actually teach stuff like that in Bible college.

 

[Mistermystery]

The new theory invalidate the old theory. Yet I have had people on this very board argue the old theory that horses evolved from small to large. That is why more and more I am just dealing with the area of evolutionary theory that evolutionists themselves have falsified.

No you didn't. You misused a quote from the nation museum link you posted in that thread. The link contained no wrong information, except it said that this idea was held up by scientists until recently. Because there were more fossils found 100 years ago we could conclude that this was not true. You have not invalidated the theory of evolution John, stop telling porkies.

 

[JohnR7]

John didn't understand that whether one talks of a "bush" or a "tree", the same thing is meant, a branching pattern.

I have some bushes out back that were getting kind of hard to trim. So over the winter I cut them back to about 3 feet high and 1.5 fee wide. The kept right on growing and they doubled in size in just a few month.

My question is: If evolution is like a bush then why do we have extinctions. Why can't the "bush" just produce some new branches or new species?

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Can you tell me if this was the skull of a mammal or a reptile?

 

[Tomk80]

I have some bushes out back that were getting kind of hard to trim. So over the winter I cut them back to about 3 feet high and 1.5 fee wide. The kept right on growing and they doubled in size in just a few month.

My question is: If evolution is like a bush then why do we have extinctions. Why can't the "bush" just produce some new branches or new species?

John, abstract thinking is hard for you, isn't it? Every branch represents a new species. We place all species at the end of the branches because if we find a new species, we can never be sure whether it is a "knot" or a "dead end".
The "bush" continually produces new branches. However, your bush also has shorter and longer branches. Some branches won't branch of further (current species or extinct species), some will produce new branches (where the knot is a common ancestor).

 

[Tomk80]

Can you tell me if this was the skull of a mammal or a reptile?

That's easy, it's a maptile. Or is it a remmal?

 

[JohnR7]

You have not invalidated the theory of evolution John, stop telling porkies.

I did not invalidate anything. Science invalided an old theory and replaced it with a new theory. That is why we have darwinism, classic neo darwinism, and now we are into a third generation of neo darwinism. Each time the theory is falsifed and replaced with a new theory.

It is a sure thing that new information is going to come along to invalidate old evolutionary theorys. They will need to develop new theorys that support the new information. There are three things in life that are pretty much a sure thing, death, taxes and that the existing evolutionary theory is going to be falsifed.

 

[JohnR7]

The "bush" continually produces new branches.

So, when was the last time a new species was produced? Of course evolution is not really a bush, because they can not find any bush anywhere.
It seems to be a bunch of branches growing out of nowhere.

 

[Aron-Ra]

They why can't you take a species out of one biodiverse ecology and put it into another. According to evolutionary theory the species should change and become a part of the new system. But that is not what happens. Look at the wild rabbit population in australia that is out of control.

What do you want it to do? Turn into a kangaroo? When you take (some) of one species and geographically isolate them, that species is now divided, and differences between the original rabbits and the now-Australian rabbits will accumulate. Pretty soon, you'll be able to tell the two groups apart even if you put two of them together again. Do you understand that?

 

[Mistermystery]

I did not invalidate anything. Science invalided an old theory and replaced it with a new theory. That is why we have darwinism, classic neo darwinism, and now we are into a third generation of neo darwinism. Each time the theory is falsifed and replaced with a new theory.

It is a sure thing that new information is going to come along to invalidate old evolutionary theorys. They will need to develop new theorys that support the new information. There are three things in life that are pretty much a sure thing, death, taxes and that the existing evolutionary theory is going to be falsifed.

Better that then a falsified gap/creationism-hybrid.

 

[JohnR7]

What do you want it to do? Turn into a kangaroo?

At least you would have some evidence to back up your theorys rather than having to rely on a bunch of outdated speculation.

Do you understand that?

I understand open and closed gene pools,
what point are you trying to make by that?

 

[JohnR7]

Better that then a falsified gap/creationism-hybrid.

There really is not much of a gap theory to falsify, it is still being developed.

 

[Tomk80]

So, when was the last time a new species was produced? Of course evolution is not really a bush, because they can not find any bush anywhere.
It seems to be a bunch of branches growing out of nowhere.

There have been enough examples of speciation posted on this board. If you want to take them on, and show why these are not new species, go right ahead and show it in those threads. I have not seen you repond to them before.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

There really is not much of a gap theory to falsify, it is still being developed.

By whom, you and your pastor? Good luck!