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.
It also suggests that the TOE is highly improbable due to the hindered reproductive nature of the interbreeding. So does that leave us with both theories being invalid and we should claim alien cloning to be fact, or does it mean that we attribute both theories as possible and look to science to close the question? I vote, that both are considered possible and we look again to science for answers to questions we still have.Aron-Ra said:Technically, lions are cats, but if I take this to mean Felis sylvestris, the common housecat, then I would like to point out something most people don't realize about cats.
Taxonomy is a matter of descendant groups within ancestral groups. There are untold breeds of housecats within just one of some three dozen or so different feline species which constitute a single genera, Felis.
Lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars and other panthers aren't just different species from housecats, cougars and other felines; they are in a different genus, Panthera, meaning they're even more distantly-related than you may have guessed. The other known felid genera are the cheetahs, lynx and the extinct scimitar cats.
Occasionally, two closely-related species can be interbred, usually, (but not always) with infertile offspring. There have been one or two fertile mules for example. However, crossing two different genus is exponentially more difficult. They managed to cross a llama with a camel, (for example) but that took two years' research, and several attempts at artificial insemination.
The further two groups grow apart, the harder it is to breed them back together. But if they're still very closely-related, it might be possible (on some occasions) to produce viable offspring. This all indicates that there is no solid dividing line between "kinds". And even if there was, "species" can't be that division because we've already seen it crossed many times.
Matt04 said:In fact, I think I might take a trip to the library tomorrow.
The life-changing aspect of this experience is that I learned the extent of what science is discovering, and what it could do for me. I learned how to ask questions. I learned how to consider both sides of important issues, and how to use critical thinking skills to find the answer. I learned--far too late--that I was no longer a child and did not simply need to echo the fundamentalist religion that I had been taught. I can not describe for you the immense benefits this new outlook on life has given me. It involves far more than reaching a correct understanding of the creation.I do have to ask a question about this; Is your origin really that important to you? I've been a Christian... well, forever really, and I've gone back and forth on the origin issue for the past 2 years, although I don't really consider it of the utmost importance. Would I like to have a firm confidence and argument for one side? Sure. But I've never really viewed it as a life changing experience.
This is not a totally fair evaluation, but somewhat helpful. Just some things that I want to touch on. You people have been pushing the discussion to E vs. C not me. I have been pushing the discussion to what is possible. Secondly, you totally fail to evaluate the TOE as you have done the other theories. Including the areas where the theory fails. And yes, we know that there are areas where the TOE cannot answer all the questions. Thirdly, to put forth possibilities is scientific in nature. It is how we determine what is possible and what is not. So how does putting forth possibilities equal lack of scientific misconceptions.gluadys said:Razzelflaben
Away back in your first post you asked
So let's recap on that basis.
How has science disproven creationism?
To some extent this depends on how you define creationism. Most of us here are familiar with the descriptions of creationism used by major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG and even the more wacko versions promoted by the likes of Kent Hovind and Jack Chick.
Some versions of creationism explicitly include a global flood based on Gen. 6-8.
A version that includes a global flood is easily disproved by geology as nothing in geology supports a global flood. As early as 1831, Christians who understood the implications of geology agreed that Noah's flood must have been a local, not a global event.
All Young-earth and some Old-earth versions of creationism call for the near simultaneous creation of all species (or "kinds"). This is also falsified by the geological record which clearly shows that no species has existed throughout the whole history of the earth. For a considerable period of time (about 2 billion years as measured scientifically) the only living forms occurring in the fossil record are simple bacteria and archea. For nearly half as long again, the only additional life forms are simple unicellular eukaryotes (aka protista). Then we start to get some multi-cellular algae and (about 700 million years ago) the strange Ediacaran animals, most of whom have no relationship to any modern species whatsoever. Only then do we get to the so-called Cambrian explosion, with many new forms of marine fauna. Most of these, such as trilobites, have long since become extinct. It is not until after the Cambrian period that we find the first hint of life on land---some possible plant spores. Terrestrial plant life is not confirmed until the Silurian, which also shows the first animal life on land (spiders, centipedes). Meanwhile the only major vertebrates in existence are sharks and fish. Vertebrates capable of living on land do not appear until the Devonian period, and amphibians appear long before reptiles. No dinosaurs, birds or mammals and no flowering plants (only mosses, ferns and some very un-modern gymnosperms) are found in these periods.
Rather than continue through the whole geologic column--this is more than enough to show that species appear billions of years apart in the fossil record, and many species become extinct before newer species appear.
This fully falsifies any version of creationism which calls for all species to be created at the same time and to be contemporaneous with each other.
We can leave to another time the question of human relationship to other animals as I believe that requires more background. Suffice it to say that as far as I am aware, all versions of creationism, including day-age Old-Earth Creationism, which comes closest to matching the geology and fossil record of science, maintain that human beings are a separately created kind with no phylogenic relation to apes or any other form of life. The evidence strongly indicates the contrary.
Now you have not proposed any of the above (global flood, all species created at once, humanity a separately created kind). You have proposed only two theses in the "original theory" of TOC:
1. God made all things.
2. All living things reproduce after their kind.
The basic problem with these propositions is that, as stated, they are not unique to creationism, so they do not define TOC as being in any way distinguishable from other theories. An evolutionist can support both of those statements. So does ID. Because these statements do not distinguish TOC from other theories, there is no basis on which to discuss TOC as a theory. It may as well not exist, if the only way in which it exists is in complete conformity with other theories.
However, there are two clarifications to be made that would distinguish TOC so that it can be discussed as a theory in its own right.
1. Define "kind". There is a sense in which the concept that all things reproduce after their kind is fully consistent with TOE. In fact, without this rule, we could not get the nested hierarchy which is a powerful piece of supporting evidence for TOE.
But there are other senses of "kind", which, if true, would falsify TOE.
And there are senses of "kind", which, if true, would falsify TOC.
An example of a definition of "kind" which would falsify TOE would be "Kind is the approximate equivalent of a taxonomic family." If this were true, it would be quite impossible for a dinosaur "kind" to evolve into a bird "kind" or a deer "kind" to evolve into a whale "kind". And TOE not only claims this could happen, but claims evidence that it did happen.
An example of a definition of "kind" which would falsify TOC would be "Kind is the approximate equivalent of a taxonomic species." If this were true, it would be quite impossible for ring species to exist or for an above-ground species of mosquito to become a different species of mosquito upon adapting to live in the London subway tunnels. But we know these things have happened, so either TOC is falsified or "kind" is not equivalent to "species".
2. Once, "kind" is defined, state unequivocally whether modern humans are a specially created kind with no relationship to any other "kind", or part of a "kind" which includes other species.
With these clarifications, TOC can now stand on its own as a theory instead of being just part of another theory. And it can be tested against the evidence to determine its validity.
How has science disproven ID?
Basically through lack of supporting evidence.
ID depends on producing evidence of "irreducible""/specified" complexities which cannot, in principle, be explained by evolution. If even a plausible way to get the complexity through evolution can be proposed (whether or not the complexity really evolved that way), then the complexity does not fit the criteria of ID.
For ID is not just saying that evolution has so far failed to explain complexity A; ID is saying that evolution is incapable of ever explaining complexity A. So any plausible explanation of how evolution could produce complexity A shows that ID is wrong to call it an irreducible/specified complexity.
To date, this is what has happened in every case proposed as an example of irreducible/specified complexity. A plausible means of producing the complexity has been described.
Is the evidence for evolution only a mass of suggestions?
The answer to that will depend a lot on what you understand the TOE to be. Many people do not understand the TOE. They believe it says things it does not say or does not say things it does say. They make assumptions about TOE which are not correct, and so claim the evidence is not convincing.
The answer to that will also depend a lot on understanding science in general. What counts as evidence? What is the relationship between theory and evidence? How is theory tested? How are we assured that the results of scientific method are accurate?
Now, what have we seen in your posts.
1. Although you try to include ID, it appears you are not very familiar with this idea. You do not base any of your arguments on ID theory or proposed ID evidence. This theory is not being examined in any way on this thread.
2. I am prepared to take your word that you do not believe in the TOC, but rather only lean in that direction. However, as long as you limit TOC to only the two principles you have stated, it is not possible to discuss TOC, since these two principles do not distinguish it from any other theory. All the theories are open to the possibility of creation by God (although this is not a scientific statement and not falsifiable by scientific method) and all theories agree that parent organisms produce organisms of the same kind/species/sub-species/etc. as themselves.
What is needed from you, if the discussion is to continue, is a description of how TOC differs from the other theories. I would note that you are eager to see what the various theories can offer each other, how they can enrich each other's insights. That is commendable. But if TOC does not differ in any way from the other theories, then it has nothing distinctive to offer.
3. Many of your posts indicate that you have very limited understanding of scientific method and many incorrect assumptions about TOE. I will make a separate post to deal with some of these misconceptions.
Could it be that in your desire to see others stop making assumptions about TOC and/or your own inclinations, you have overlooked the possibility that you are making assumptions about TOE and the outlook of those who consider it to be a fact as well as a theory?
Are you as open to having your assumptions about TOE corrected as you ask us to be about our assumptions in regard to TOC?
razzelflabben said:It also suggests that the TOE is highly improbable due to the hindered reproductive nature of the interbreeding.
razzelflabben said:I do not even understand what you want me to answer. Can you clarify your pupose for these questions? Two things are apparent in this post.
1. You fail to understand the fuzziness of the definitions that we have been discussing.
2. You fail to understand that at this point in our scientific research, there is no fact when relating to our origins. Both are possible. Why do the people here, read my posts claiming that both, especially since they overlap so, are possible and then go off trying to prove that E is the only viable theory because I am trying to prove that C is fact?
What I have said many times over, is that there are many many unanswered questions which equals no conclusive proof as to which theory is truth. This statement is met with the same passion that a mama bear protects her young and yet you claim that the TOE is not a belief system. I have yet to meet this type of behavior that was not directly related to a belief system. When I came here, I had hoped to find otherwise, but unfortunately, you people have done more to push me toward C than I ever thought was possible. When will you understand, that it is about all the unanswered questions? All the gray areas? None the less, I will try to answer these questions but please understand, it is off topic and I don't really understand what you are asking.]
What definition of species are we going by in this discussion? Some of these creatures, I do not know what they are, I am not an animal buff. But without knowing what definition we are going with, I cannot answer. I already answered a similar line of questions on another post but had a definition to work with.[/color][/left]
Again, what definition do we want to work with. The beginning of this quote concerns me, both theories are supported by scientific evidence, both theories leave unanswered questions about our environment. Why must we label one as truth and the other as false? Theory would allow for either to be truth. Isn't that the point of theory? A direction for finding answers, truth?
There's that which is truth idea again. Now I am sure you or someone else will accuse me of evading the issue but I really don't understand what you are wanting me to answer. We have been talking about species, now you are asking about long ancestorial lines? And the thread is not about either! Are you asking me what is possible in the TOC or are you asking for my personal belief, or what the traditional C answers are, or just exactly what are you asking me and how does it relate to the theme of the thread?
Well, first what I will tell you is that there are still more questions about our world than there are answer, for both theories. Secondly, possibleexplainations would include different species, incomplete data, and the possibility for some interspecies (sub species) synapomorphies. Is that what you were looking for in this big long post?
Matt04 said:
I know I'm a few pages behind, but WOW, please tell me how! I was not aware of this.
Oh... nevermind. I just realized there's 59 pages and not 10...
Now that is communication and what I have been asking people for.Tomk80 said:Razzelflabben, thank you for your answers. I still don't get your position, but if you don't mind I'll keep on asking questions untill I get it.
Indeed, I saw the correction made later on. If you agree, I'd like to use the corrected definition:
I asked the question because many people tend to read into answers rather than work with the answers given as you are doing.
Since I asked you whether you agreed with the definition and you wrote you can work with it, I don't see the difference. If there are differences, where are these and why?
This can be unique to the species, or it can be evidence for E. The bottom line, it is one of the gray areas in the definition of species. I consider it the same species because of the fact that they grow up to be the same species as their parents. In a similar way to a catapillar becomeing a butterfly. A catapillar does not mature into a frog, that would be a new species, or if it remained a catapillar dispite the environment, then it would be new species perion, not possible new species, possible built in adaptability to it's environment. Either is possible, I lean toward same species for the above reasons.Because other animals don't stay in their immature forms and reproduce in these forms. That's what makes them different species, not just them being immature forms of the same species.
Agreed and stated many times. E is possible based on the observations we have made. Because of the unanswered questions and possible explainations of the other theories, the possibility of E does not equal the TOE is fact. That spcies can change, yes, we have observed that. That this change can, did, and does occur to create new viable species has not yet been proven.So, if you were presented with the same example, but then present in nature, you'd except that speciation had happened in nature? I'm getting a little confused here. We know speciation can happen in the laboratory, agree or not? Therefore, it is proof speciation can happen. That was all this example was meant to show, IIRC. Thus, evolution can happen, true of false? Your objection would then be not that evolution cannot happen, it is observed in the laboratory, but that evolution might not have happened in nature. Is that your postion?
Thanks for the communication, it is much better than trying to go around proving how wrong someone is especially when we have already agreed that they are right.For me, I have considered some of the options you pointed out. Maybe we'll get to that later on.
They are starting to, but I'll keep asking you questions to at least get your position clear.
Well apparently you totally missed my point. First, I have never said, in fact, I am running out of ways of saying that the observations suggest that the TOE is possible. What do you people not understand about that statement? The TOE is possible. However, there are still many questions that the TOE cannot answer about the information we currently have and that is what makes the TOE theory. The same is true for the original theory of C, we have observations that suggest that the TOC could be possible but that the TOC still has many questions that cannot be answered by the current observations, thus making the TOC theory.USincognito said:Because this is where your logic train derailed.
Can't you even follow your own ad hoc rationalizing? You suggested that the reasons dinosaurs became extinct before humans is because humans are still here --- in relation to the fact that we don't find human and dinosaur bones in the same strata --- while suggesting that humans an dinosaurs "might" have lived contemporaneously. Yet, crocodiles, who still exist today --- and do live contemporaneously with humans today --- are found in the same strata as dinosaurs.
How do you explain that inconsistency other than ad hoc handwaving? Don't forget, this is about you trying to excuse the fact that we don't find dinosaur and human bones in the same strata. We are looking for facts about evolution aren't we?
Matt04 said:I do have to ask a question about this; Is your origin really that important to you? I've been a Christian... well, forever really, and I've gone back and forth on the origin issue for the past 2 years, although I don't really consider it of the utmost importance. Would I like to have a firm confidence and argument for one side? Sure. But I've never really viewed it as a life changing experience.
The most important fact to me about life is Jesus and what He did for everyone. Although there are many questions in life, none of them or their answers could mean to me what Jesus did means to me.
And I cannot help those who cannot accept there are still unanswered questions see that the evidence is not equal to proof. So I guess we are at an impass and I will count myself inriched to have crossed paths with you and move on. Please don't stop seeking truth, someday, you may find it if you keep looking, I plan to.USincognito said:You're wrong. And your dismissing the tons and tons of evidence that I cited in my post does not turn it into "a minute amount." Didn't you notice that I bolded the word never every time I used it? In all our tons of dinosaur fossil finds, we never find any evidence of interaction with humans or human fossils in the same starta. Never.
Again, I go back to the forensics analogy. If you place the same level of evidence as a jury member at a murder trial no one would ever get convicted. If you want to wait until ever single square inch of soil in the Western Hemisphere is dug up and found free of Hominid fossils, that's your issue, not sciences.
Hon, I'm gonna need you to keep up with the discussion if it's going to be productive. We have found human remains in strata dating back 10-12,000 years. We have never found dinosaur remains dating back to less than 65 million years ago. We have found Australid and Hominid (did you notice I kept using those words) remaind back to around 3 million years ago. We have never found dinosaur remains younger than 65 million years ago. We have found dinosaur remains in the Western Hemisphere. We have never found Australid or Hominid fossils in the Western Hemisphere.
BTW, we've never found a fossilized human remain in the Western Hemisphere. 10,000 years is insufficient time for fossilization to occur. We have found bones and artifacts.
How about instead of just alluding to "possibilities" you present some? Again, I think the burden is on those who claim O.J. didn't kill Nichole to tell us why we have never found anything to contradict current evolutionary thinking (other than ad hoc rationalizations).
I'm even sorrier because after nearly 60 pages of having it explained to you in excruciatingly time consuming detail - you apparently wouldn't know a fact if it walked up to you wearing a "Hi I'm a fact" t-shirt and shook hands with you. You're not interested in what is true, you're interested in "TRVTH" which you seem to think you have a monopoly on. I can't help you see the trees until you've realized you're in a forrest, not a field of dreams.
Herein was your first mistake dear one, you assumed that E was not possible. Of course it is possible. If you had begun your quest by assuming what was possible, you would not have had such a life changing experience.doubtingmerle said:Let me answer with a story:
...........And that questioning has led to answers, including that evolution is overwhelmingly supported by science, and is the obvious answer as to how we got here.
Your life too could be changed if you would stop typing for one afternoon and take a trip to a library.
mrversatile48 said:Relevance to evolution/change/development etc?
It charts the process so clearly seen, throughout history, in the lives of individuals..communities..cities..continents..the world
It starts with refusing to acknowlege God as God - as Lord of life - refusing to thank & praise Him for His many blessings
mrversatile48 said:"In every flower that opens..
In every grain of sand!"
Joe Public readers out there, your God-given eyes, ears, minds etc can see the clear proof of God's stupendous design - especially thru telescopes & microscopes too - sites online show 'em, yes?
Don't be intimidated by evo-loopies
God bless!
Ian
Okay, if I have it wrong, then define E because as it has been taught to me, the TOE is about species changing and developing into new creatures. These creatures evolve into new creatures, and so forth and so on until be have a new species. This occurs over time and therefore we see a whole bunch of species decendant from a common ancestor.gluadys said:This is a false assumption about TOE. It is an indication that your information about TOE is incorrect and leads you to make false predictions based on faulty information.
As Aron-Ra just explained, TOE predicts that successful inter-breeding will only occur between closely related species. As the distance between two species widens, successful inter-breeding becomes rarer and eventually non-existant.
This is what we observe in nature.
What information about TOE made you think the theory was out of synch with reality? What information about TOE made you think it required there be no hindrance to interbreeding among species?
Whatever it was, chuck it. It is incorrect information.
razzelflabben said:This is not a totally fair evaluation, but somewhat helpful.
Just some things that I want to touch on. You people have been pushing the discussion to E vs. C not me.
Secondly, you totally fail to evaluate the TOE as you have done the other theories. Including the areas where the theory fails.
And yes, we know that there are areas where the TOE cannot answer all the questions.
Thirdly, to put forth possibilities is scientific in nature. It is how we determine what is possible and what is not. So how does putting forth possibilities equal lack of scientific misconceptions.
By all means, correct the misconceptions, that is what communication is all about. I have been surprised already several times on this thread by how much the TOE has changed since I studied it in school, how much many of you differ in your understanding of the theory and how much the theory now resembles the TOC during it's own evolution as a theory.
razzelflabben said:Well apparently you totally missed my point. First, I have never said, in fact, I am running out of ways of saying that the observations suggest that the TOE is possible. What do you people not understand about that statement? The TOE is possible.
However, there are still many questions that the TOE cannot answer about the information we currently have and that is what makes the TOE theory.
The same is true for the original theory of C, we have observations that suggest that the TOC could be possible
but that the TOC still has many questions that cannot be answered by the current observations, thus making the TOC theory.
Show me the illogic in determining that an animal that is currently extinct, became extinct before modern man? Please, I am anxious to know the illogic to this statement.
I already did. We're trying to establish several things here, most importantly, what exactly a Biblical "kind" is. It is the most critical thing we need to determine in order to settle this debate.razzelflabben said:I do not even understand what you want me to answer. Can you clarify your pupose for these questions?
You are mistaken. Our definitions of that aren't relevant here.Two things are apparent in this post.
1. You fail to understand the fuzziness of the definitions that we have been discussing.
Obviously the perceptive failure is yours. Creationism has been disproved. So it is no longer a possibility. There are millions of facts available for the origins of our species, our genus, our order, etc. But all of them point to evolutionary processes exclusively with no available space to squeeze any pre-human myths of Eden into.2. You fail to understand that at this point in our scientific research, there is no fact when relating to our origins. Both are possible.
To be quite blunt, evolution is the only available Theory of our origins. There has never been a Theory of creationism, and I doubt very much that there ever will be one. In science, a Theory is the study, and explanation of facts. For example atomic Theory is the study of the function and properties of atoms. Creation theory must therefore be the study of that which can't be studied, (because it is believed only on faith) and it would therefore be an explanation for the unexplainable, which currently can only described as magic.Why do the people here, read my posts claiming that both, especially since they overlap so, are possible and then go off trying to prove that E is the only viable theory because I am trying to prove that C is fact?
Wrong again, as I will gladly demonstrate with another quote from Hawking's book:What I have said many times over, is that there are many many unanswered questions which equals no conclusive proof as to which theory is truth. This statement is met with the same passion that a mama bear protects her young and yet you claim that the TOE is not a belief system.
Exactly! That is why I am asking these questions! Here is the only place you're ever going to find the reality of this situation. By insisting on some micro vs macroevolutionary division, the creationist reduces the evolutionary tree of life to a series of small shrubs that do not share any common root. This series of queries is meant to help determine whether this model is accurate or not.I have yet to meet this type of behavior that was not directly related to a belief system. When I came here, I had hoped to find otherwise, but unfortunately, you people have done more to push me toward C than I ever thought was possible. When will you understand, that it is about all the unanswered questions? All the gray areas?
You have never encountered any question more critical than these. Everything else you argue for is off-topic. Throw away any ideas you have about the importance of any other argument you might be thinking about. None of them compare to this. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all living things, or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there MUST be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. And unless you're a Scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves. So my challenge to you is this, open up Google.com and investigate any cladograms you can find, (I suggest the Tree of Life pages as they are peer-reviewed) and find for me where that mystic division is in any or all of these sets of questions.None the less, I will try to answer these questions but please understand, it is off topic and I don't really understand what you are asking.
It doesn't matter. The question is do you think (A) is biologically related to (B) through some acceptibly minimal evolutionary means? Or do you think (A) was specially-created by a god entirely unrelated to (B) and therefore an entirely different Biblical "kind" from it? You don't need any biological clade definitions to determine that.What definition of species are we going by in this discussion?
I research everything I respond to. Don't you? Feel free to look each of these up if you must. Then answer the question, yes or no, as best you can. Then we can look at each of these more in-depth. I suspect only then will you begin to realize why scientists consider the evidence of evolution so "overwhelming" and the evidence of creation so utterly absent.Some of these creatures, I do not know what they are, I am not an animal buff. But without knowing what definition we are going with, I cannot answer. I already answered a similar line of questions on another post but had a definition to work with.
That's why I asked you to explain, which are created and which are related. You see, I wholly disagree that there is any evidence of creationism whatsoever. All science-based concepts readily attempt to explain even complex data in detail. But creationists all too often want to avoid all the most critical data altogether, dismissing it all as "irrelevent". But only by really attempting to delve into these will you ever be able to hone in on the truth.Again, what definition do we want to work with. The beginning of this quote concerns me, both theories are supported by scientific evidence, both theories leave unanswered questions about our environment. Why must we label one as truth and the other as false? Theory would allow for either to be truth. Isn't that the point of theory? A direction for finding answers, truth?
I don't think that's quite an accurate assumption. I'm allowing that you probably accept some degree of evolution, which you probably refer to as microevolution. Whether you define that properly or not, my queries still allow that both concepts might be partially true at the same time. But of course, my suspicion at this point is that only one of them is really true at any level at all. Can you change my mind about that?There's that which is truth idea again.
This thread is about challenging evolution. You can't begin to do that if you refuse to deal with the single most powerful evidence of macroevolutionary common ancestry, the twin-nested heirarchy of systematic taxonomy. If you insist on limiting your argument only to species, you'll never present any challenge at all, and will never discover the truth either.Now I am sure you or someone else will accuse me of evading the issue but I really don't understand what you are wanting me to answer. We have been talking about species, now you are asking about long ancestorial lines? And the thread is not about either!
I'm asking you if you think Parentie monitors evolved from a common ancestor with any other variety of monitor lizards? Or were the perentie, and all other monitors magically created, and only look like they're related? I know what is possible in the "theory" of magic: miracles. Anything is possible when you don't have to explain it. But in the Theory of evolution, there are very specific rules, and there should be at least an attempt to seek the best explanation for everything. So that's what I'm asking you for. These really aren't such a tough questions. They're all pretty straight-forward really. So I don't see why you're so hesitent to propose an answer for them.Are you asking me what is possible in the TOC or are you asking for my personal belief, or what the traditional C answers are, or just exactly what are you asking me and how does it relate to the theme of the thread?
There is only one theory, as there is only one that provides any answers of any verifiable, demonstrable, testible, measurable, or applicable nature.Aron-Ra said:How does you alleged theory of creation help you explain the derived synapomorphies, (inherited similarities) evident in these apparent relationships?Well, first what I will tell you is that there are still more questions about our world than there are answer, for both theories.
Not at all. When I ask a series of yes or no questions, I generally expect a concordant series of yes or no answers. Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers? Yes or no? Give me your best guess, and some reasoning behind it, if you would please. Then I can use that to better understand your position, and help you better understand mine.Secondly, possibleexplainations would include different species, incomplete data, and the possibility for some interspecies (sub species) synapomorphies. Is that what you were looking for in this big long post?
razzelflabben said:Okay, if I have it wrong, then define E because as it has been taught to me, the TOE is about species changing and developing into new creatures.
These creatures evolve into new creatures, and so forth and so on until be have a new species. This occurs over time and therefore we see a whole bunch of species decendant from a common ancestor.
If there are reproductive problems within the evolving species, how then can we be sure that the species evolve into new creatures to the degree that we have a variety of species from the same ancestor. It don't not mean it is impossible, but does provide a great deal of speculation.
Razzelflabben obviously ignored everything Merle just said. When he said that he found thousands of transitional species described in shelves full of volumes of science journals in a University library, Razzelflabben somehow assumed these were all based on faith and dared to ask where they are! What more can you expect from someone who criticizes research as "your first mistake".razzelflabben said:Herein was your first mistake dear one,
......Where are the missing links?
razzelflabben said:If evolution is true, and man evolved, then why didn't man evolve the evil out of his existance?
science cannot be used to prove evolution for by the very nature of science as well as the theory, it cannot be proven.
the scientific "evidence" must be interpreted. This interpretation is done by man, man makes mistakes,
Obviously man is not perfect, but evolutionary theory would indicate that man should have evolved into a different creature, instead, he remains the top of the scale.
Fraud or not, it [Paluxy tracks] does not prove evolution. If it is not a fraud, then it would prove a flaw in the evolutionary theory. If it is a fraud, it does not prove anything but that that evidence does not exist at this time.
Evolution 0
Creation0
What gives you this idea? I have heard reputable scientists on both sides of the issue debate. Both have strong points, thus further proof that there is not overwhelming evidence to support evolution.
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?