Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They are DOING science correctly (applying the method can getting to evidence), but they are ALSO interpreting what they find and in this case (the one we are discussing) through the pre-supposition. Is there some kind of logic block that does not enable you to process this distinction? And I am not trying to insult you...
but what part of something that would be an effect cannot precede it's own alleged cause can you not grasp? I ask this because we do see that when de-programming victims of cults, or in those suffering from Stockholm syndrome. There mind causes them to default to another string of information from which they again default to yet another and so on until they return to the originally unresolved issue.
So now your turn. Please explain how an effect (in this case the alleged result of an alleged transitional form) can precede the cause (in this case Tiktaalik tyoe of creature) OF THE EFFECT?
Give me your logic for this.
but you said that "out of order fossil" like a bird before an avian dino will disprove evolution. so now you are claiming that you actually dont know? its a self contradiction.
Is it possible that they have been taught the correct explanation? Do you not think that over the course of the tens of thousands of hours of research and observation one of them might have realized something was amiss?
Francis Collins "Whoa, hold on there Craig, a bloke on the internet seems pretty sure we're interpreting our work through an assumption"
Craig Venter "What? Oh man, do I have to give back my Kistler Prize?!"
What you are describing is neither science being done right, since you are saying that they are presupposing the evidence, is one of the single most wrong things you can do in science, and transitional fossils are not a cause and effect. The Cause is evolution and the effect is the transitionals.
the simple answer may be that they arent even aware about those evidences against evolution. even dr behe admit that he was not aware about evidence against evolution when he was study. the first time he found such evidence was when he read the book "evolution, a theory in crysis" by dr michael denton.That was not what you asked. However, I cannot speak to motive. I believe that they believe what they have been taught as the correct explanation (indoctrination not education is responsible for this) and then intepret all they find through this assumption, They are taught the hypothesis is true by the previously indoctrinated who must teach a scripted curriculum (no variance from the program allowed). Evolution is true to a great extent (speciation does produce variety for example) but NO FACTS show fish become amphibians which become reptiles and so on....not one!
See there is a great example of that block to logical thinking...I NEVER said they are presupposing the evidence. Never!
Transitional: relating to or characteristic of a process or period of transition; movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another
Just because some creature may have some anatomical or physiological characteristics "LIKE" another creature OR share some similarities with two distinct creatures DOES NOT equal "Transitional" which by definition IS an in between stage (from one into the other)
That's not what I'm saying at all! You asked me what the borderline for the years of the appearance of the transitional fossils is and I said that I did not know the answer to that question.
but you said that "finding birds below all avian dinosaurs would falsify evolution". so if you dont know where is the limit how you can claim that such a fossil will disprove evolution?
Ha ha ha very funny I can make up humorous quips as well...Okay Jim same question for you....your turn...
Please explain how an effect (in this case the alleged result of an alleged transitional form) can precede its own alleged cause (in this case Tiktaalik)?
so if i will prove to you that the zebra was designed, you will have no problem to accept a speciel creation instead of evolution, right?
Because they want it to be true and interpret the actual data through the hypothesis, instead of letting the actual data SHAPE the hypothesis (which is what good science does).
Then some make idiot assumptions like this quote from doubtingmerle..."I find it hard to believe a designer kept putting more and more advanced animals out there, popping them into existence out of nothing, until finally it created the zebra" as if that's what educated people who believe in a creator (like Francis Collins for example) actually believe. He really is so clueless.
... YES YOU DID! Post #899, right at the very top, the very first sentence: "They are DOING science correctly (applying the method can getting to evidence), but they are ALSO interpreting what they find and in this case (the one we are discussing) through the pre-supposition."
I don't understand the question.
Are you asking how the prediction that we would find a particular transitional form was made before the actual fossil was found?
You accused me of saying they "presupposed the evidence" and I DID NOT say that as your post back proves. The presupposition effected the conclusion they claimed, not the science they did, OR the evidence they found. Are you sure you are able to represent what I actually post? You made this same error misrepresenting what I said in post 879.
Now back to my question for you....I certainly have responded to your inquiries as well as your misrepresentations. So here is my question for you....please respond to it....
Can you please explain how an effect (in this case the alleged result of an alleged transitional form) can precede its own alleged cause (in this case Tiktaalik)?
It is a simple question in very clear terms
No! I realize there is a logic block that cannot allow you to conclude the obvious, but I will ask again and if you read it and think about it maybe you can respond honestly (assuming intellectual integrity is important to you).
Can you please explain how an effect (in this case the alleged result of an alleged transitional form) can precede its own alleged cause (in this case Tiktaalik)?
It is a simple question in very clear terms...
Uh, no that was not an idiot assumption. I have been asking over and over what creationists here offer as the alternative to evolution and they refuse--refuse!--to answer, so I have been putting forth my best guesses.
If I guess wrong, you could actually answer. How do you think the first zebra came into existance? I think it evolved from an animal like the Merychippus, which evolved from an animal like Hyracotherium over many millions of years. How do you think it happened?
You did say that. You have claimed that scientists have a presupposition, since, in your view, to accept evolution, they would have to presuppose that evolution is what occurred, so they worked from that presupposed viewpoint. It is that simple. If they didn't have the presupposed notions you claim they have, they would not search for evidence in the way they do.
And I did answer your question. What you are describing is not cause and effect since both examples are effects of the cause of evolution.
NO, no, no! You cannot avoid the misrepresentation you made, I did not say "scientists presuppose the evidence" which was your accusation.
And NO you did not answer my question. IF Tik IS a transitional FROM fish (the former) TO Tetrapods (the latter), THEN based only on the actual evidence, how can Tetrapods already have existed? You ARE putting the proverbial horse before the cart.
Now I am no prophet or psychic but I already knew you would refuse to just state the obvious. You will not or else cannot. The result of an alleged transition (tetrapods) cannot pre-exist itself.
That is what you said! For a process like evolution, scientists cannot just solely have a presupposition for one part of the process of finding. They have to have the presupposition FOR THE WHOLE THING. That's how presuppositions work!
Your question is wrong purely because you're treating tiktaalik like it is the only transitional fossil for fishapod to tetrapod. No scientist will make that claim. So it is possible to find a transitional that is earlier than tiktaalik, but you will not find a true tetrapod before tiktaalik, which is not what has been found.
The first comment shows you not capable of separating what I actually said (my real words mean what they said) from what you think I mean. I get it...
And my question to you cannot be be answered directly you must re-interpret and redirect. I get it...
Finally, I did not say there may not be others which are transitional and yes it is POSSIBLE we may find one or more at some point. I said TIK is not a transitional, and it is not!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?