laconicstudent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 25, 2009
- 11,671
- 720
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
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.
You don't provide evidence or sources so if you're really interested in evidence, which I honestly doubt, you can google them.
Ignoring my reasons for dismissing your evidence is not the same as a refutation. I analysed your examples and they are just not substantial.agon said:Ignoring evidence does not cause it to cease to exist.
New PRATT already?Modern Homo sapiens are hundreds of millions of years old and existed even in the Cambrian Period.
That's precisely why I reject Darwin.No, learn that Burden of Proof rests with the one making the positive claim.
That's precisely why I reject Darwin.
No evidence = no proof.
The only scientific evidence we have contradicts Darwin and evolution.
T
"I think that if it was pointed out to him that after 150 years, because he wrote his book Origin of Species 150 years ago, it was published in 1859, I think if he were able to come today and see after 150 years that so much fossil evidence has accumulated that contradicts his theory, I think that he might be willing to change it. But for many of his supporters today, his theory is not so much a scientific idea, but an ideology which cannot be questioned. And it's people like that, you know, his supporters today, who aren't willing to listen to evidence that contradicts their theories, who have now a government enforced monopoly so that their ideas only can be taught in the education systems in most countries in the world including the United States, who really object to what I'm saying. I don't think Darwin himself would object to what I'm saying. I think he'd listen. And, I think, he would be willing to change his ideas in the face of evidence. But many of his supporters today, they don't want to hear evidence that contradicts their theory, they try to suppress that evidence, they try to restrict those who want to speak about that evidence. " -- Michael A. Cremo, author, March 19th 2008
Michael Cremo is not anonymous. This is simply yet another Darwinist attempt to lie, trick, and deceive others and to bear false witness by deliberately misstating the facts.Oh yea, the quote from one anonymous idiot author falsifies 150 years of research proving Evolution.
Michael Cremo is not anonymous. This is simply yet another Darwinist attempt to trick and deceive others and to bear false witness by deliberately mistating the facts.
Here is your so-called "anonymous" author: Forbidden Archeology - Michael A. Cremo
If you want to persuade anyone other than yourself and the other residents of Meinong's Jungle, you're going to have to at least make a minor attempt at honesty and intellectual integrity.
It doesn't matter whether an author agrees or disagrees.Oh my gosh! An author disagrees with scientific research!
Well at least now I know who your ultimate scientific authority is.By the way, the Supreme Ayatollah also disagrees with your religion. By your logic, you should hurry up and apostatize.
It doesn't matter whether an author agrees or disagrees.
All that matters is that the physical and scientific evidence falsifies evolution.
Well at least now I know who your ultimate scientific authority is.
The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that replayed evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.
Define 'superior' and 'inferior'. We have seen species evolve to survive in an environment that would kill their ancestors, or to acquire new, useful traits: E. coli that evolved to ingest citric acid, bacteria that evolved to ingest nylon, etc.I rest my case.
The change I observe is from superior organisms to inferior organisms and it's called devolution.
The bunnies are examples of hypothetical fossils that, if discovered, would overturn the modern consensus. The fossil octopus, which is real, do not overturn the consensus.Why do you believe bunnies are fossils and octopuses aren't?
Dawkins talk of a single fossil in the wrong stratum. Since the octopus fossil is not in the wrong strata, your point is moot.Dawkins said otherwise.
Dawkins did't say it had to be a bunny. He said and I quote (these are his words not mine) "a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum."
That octopuses lived during the Cretaceous is not what's surprising: the fossil is surprising because it's a soft-bodied organism, and they are extremely rare to fossilise.You must be the only person who wasn't surprised because every scientist who wrote on the topic was surprised and some evolutionists claimed it had been planted there (perhaps by an agent of the devil?).
Billions of years is a stretch, but yes, it's possible for a species to superficially (or even biochemically) resemble its distant ancestors. However, this is not always the case: more often than note, the modern descendants will not resemble its distant ancestors, since the environment in which the population has lived is rarely the same over the millennia. Exceptions exist, of course, but that's the general trend.A fossil of a modern octopus in the Cretaceous. What's the difference? I thought you've already conceded that evolution means animals can stay exactly the same for billions of years.
Then clean your view. The differences are there for all to see. It's not exactly shrouded in secrecy; you can bring up countless images of fossils for your examination. You can browse thousands of published papers on fossils that document evolution. You can go into pretty much any museums and look at the fossils yourself.I'll have to look into this further.
That's my point. The differences are non-existent in my view. And the same with every other ancient organism including man.
Answer the question. Where does evolution say that a giraffe can give birth to an octopus?How are species created if not by evolution?
You're begging the question: despite constant calls to present this alleged evidence, anti-evolutionists (for want of a better word) have yet to cite any. We evolutionists, on the other hand, have been accumulating evidence for 150 years.If that's true, then why do evolutionists ignore evidence that contradicts their faith?
I beg to differ. With the exception of stars on the verge of death, the vast majority of a star is hydrogen plasma, with a sizeable minority being helium. A tiny fraction is lithium and heavier elements.Wrong. Stars are not made entirely of hydrogen and helium.
Oh joy, another crank.Hydrogen is formed in the corona as predicted by Hoyle: Solar Flare Surprise: Stream Of Perfectly Intact Hydrogen Atoms Detected
The sun is a mass of buring iron as claimed by Anaxagoras: The surface of the Sun:The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery. The solar surface sits beneath the sun's visible photosphere and is electrically active.
The Sun is a ball of Iron!
That you think evolution is a 'faith' is laughable at best. As I said, evidence-based beliefs are not faiths, so evolution is not a faith.I don't believe faith based science is concerned with evidence.
How did they infallibly determine that the universe hasn't existed for eternity and fail to state any justification whatsoever? If they determined that it has a finite age infallibly, then they should have a number to back that up. Otherwise, it's just a guess.Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite agethat it has not existed from all eternitybut it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.
Are you saying the universe isn't infinite, but it's close enough to be debatable? What do you mean by "approaches the limit?"The universe approaches the limit of infinite age.
"Believed to be?" "Probably?" Hasn't the church infallibly determined an age for the Earth either?The Earth is believed to be 4.6 billion years old but it is probably older than that.
Of course there's proof of evolution. How else would a theory survive for 150 years, and be stronger than ever?
then why is it still a theory?
Because that's the highest any claim can go. 'Theory' just means 'supported by the evidence'. The theory of evolution is still a theory because there is fundamentally no way to prove any claim with 100% accuracy, outside of pure logic.then why is it still a theory?
Dawkinswatch Beats Down Atheists With Mrs Woods Special Driver Straight From Sweden « Dawkinswatch
Is there proof of evolution?
Originally Posted by brinny
then why is it still a theory?
It is still a theory, brinny. And it will stay that way. i think that evolution is a fact, but scientific theory by its very nature can never be proven.
We did notice several times where the resident theocreo in this thread has nade the statement that the ToE has been falsified, but one can also say the moon is made of green cheese.
if it were so easy and obvious a thing to falsify then there would be no problem doing it, and ToE would be gone along with the theory that the four elements were earth air fire and water.
Geology, physics, chemistry etc all interlace with ToE in any number of ways, and really, to disprove ToE would involve also disproving so much that goes into all branches of science thatpretty much all of scientifc theory would have to bee thrown out.
Because that's the highest any claim can go. 'Theory' just means 'supported by the evidence'. The theory of evolution is still a theory because there is fundamentally no way to prove any claim with 100% accuracy, outside of pure logic.
That said, there is more then enough evidence for evolution to consider it a scientific fact. We have more reason to believe in evolution than we do the existence of atoms.
and here's my take on those not knowing limitations: Science, it appears, is limited. It cannot explain the un-fathomable, the inexplicable, and is based on the limited perceptions of flawed man. It can go no further, and never has, in the history of mankind, it has 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?