Challenging Evolution

[doubtingmerle]

Here is the problem: We have discovered many thousands of dinosaur fossils. Every single one dates older than 65 million years old. We have discovered many thousands of hominid (human and near-human) fossils. Every one of them dates less than 8 million years old. Now how can you explain that? The only likely explanation is that dinosaurs lived millions of years before hominids. Do you accept that conclusion?

...

That is the problem. The data fits with evolution. Creationism cannot explain this data, can it?

Actually, I have several possible theories to this,
1. the most unlikely, is incorrect dating. This could be anything from human error to error in methods, and as already stated, unlikely, but none the less possible.

We are talking about thousands of measurements of the age of dinosaur fossils. All of them date before 65 million years ago.

We are talking about thousands of measurements of artefacts of hominids. All of them date less than 8 million years ago.

And you are seriously suggesting that all of this order might reasonably be due to faulty readings? That is so unlikey, why even bother to mention it?

2. If the dinosaurs were extinct long before man, their bones would have been preserved before man's. It is hard to preserve a moving target in other words.

Correct, dinosaurs were extinct long before humans. That is my point. They died millions of years before humans. There is clear evidence for that. Do you or do you not agree?

3. Mirgration, it is possible that Man migrated to the area after dinosaurs were in that area. This could explain a lot of the discrepencies in the fossil record. Add the possible climatic changes, and a whole lot could be explained.

But how can migration account for the fact that all dino fossils are older than 65 million years, and all hominids less than 8 millions years old? This isn't even an explanation, is it?

This is just off the post of my head, and 3 would be the most probable. Though it does not answer all the questions, it would answer many of them and given the inconclusive nature of the evidence, leaves open room for speculation.

Inconclusive? Thousand of readings in many places using different methods all declare that dinosaurs died out before there were humans. How much more evidence do you need before you conclude that dinosaurs probably went extinct before humans existed? What would you consider to be conclusive evidence?

 

[mrversatile48]

So articulate one, give us one example of a "most complex" fossil found in the Cambrian.

they do a bonza dinosaur burger to thius very day!!!!!!!

 

[Jet Black]

they do a bonza dinosaur burger to thius very day!!!!!!!

dinosaurs didn't appear until the triassic, about three hundred million years after the cambrian. you can order your dino burger in the cambrian, but don't expect it to be there in 90 minutes or your money back.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay. Next up, the evolution of psilocybin.

 

[mrversatile48]

Jet was only doing what scientists do all the time: exposing falsehood. Just like when they exposed the falsehood in the tired, examined-to-death examples you've provided.

R U tired? Feeling 1 degree under? Refresh your head with a...

er..

frontal lobotomy maybe?????????


Hmmm. Piltdown Man. Never heard that one before. Have you got anything less than half a century old to discuss?

Hot news today is that UK just had, in 1 day, @ 1.5 times the normal rain for a whole month

"God moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform!"

Keep smilin' out there!

Ian

 

[Jet Black]

Hot news today is that UK just had, in 1 day, @ 1.5 times the normal rain for a whole month

"God moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform!"

Keep smilin' out there!

Ian

I heard about that, my girlfriend told me her train was delayed, that's the 2nd time now that her train has been delayed due to sunned rains and floods, I'll keep you informed as to when she is next on a train, then you can get the umbrella out

 

[Jet Black]

er..

is that false teeth - as in the tooth of an extinct pig that was used to hoax false ET evidence called either Nebraska Man or Piltdown Man

Both were deliberate hoaxes

Just what galaxy are ET fans on!!!!!!!!!!

oh look at those goalposts go. piltdown man was a hoax played on scientists by someone else and exposed by scientists. nebraska man was never part of main scientific literature anyway, and it was merely thought to be a homonid tooth, but even the discoverer said that he wouldn't commit to the idea until more of the skeleton was found.. there were only a few supporters of the idea and a rather unfortunate painting in a magazine for public consumption (i.e. not in a journal) the first was a deliberate hoax, the second was not. so here I am, exposing your falsehoods. I could expose the earlier ones, but I gone over them often enough before.

 

[mrversatile48]

dinosaurs didn't appear until the triassic, about three hundred million years after the cambrian. you can order your dino burger in the cambrian, but don't expect it to be there in 90 minutes or your money back.

Must get use of PC with mike/speakers, so I can do my cartoon voices 4 y'all in da chatroom..

Or actors...

singers...

trumpet/guitar/drums..

Enjoy the evening, 1 & all....

see ya Fri!!

Ian

 

[Jet Black]

now that is exactly why I don't bother rebutting things properly with you. I expose your massive errors and you just carry on as if you never made a mistake.

 

[mrversatile48]

oh look at those goalposts go. piltdown man was a hoax played on scientists by someone else and exposed by scientists. nebraska man was never part of main scientific literature anyway, and it was merely thought to be a homonid tooth, but even the discoverer said that he wouldn't commit to the idea until more of the skeleton was found.. there were only a few supporters of the idea and a rather unfortunate painting in a magazine for public consumption (i.e. not in a journal) the first was a deliberate hoax, the second was not. so here I am, exposing your falsehoods. I could expose the earlier ones, but I gone over them often enough before.

There was definitely a hoax made up solely from the tooth of an extinct pig...

& it was definitely either Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man

I've heard & read that 1 from @ least 3 reliable sources

1 of 'em was the hilarious cartoon booklet by Dr Jack T Chick

I'll never forget his superb put down of Piltdown..

"This genius thinks he came from an ape!!!!"

& his final coup de grace (= French 4 lawnmower???????)...

"Don't let any evolutionist make a monkey out of you!!!!!!!!!"


Ciao 4 now..

or..

as I'm hungry..

Ciao 4 now\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Your roving reporter...

Eagle-Eyed Ian

 

[Ishmael Borg]

now that is exactly why I don't bother rebutting things properly with you. I expose your massive errors and you just carry on as if you never made a mistake.

I think he confuses flippancy with relevance. He seems to demonstrate all of the qualities of a poster type that we are no longer allowed to identify.

 

[Jet Black]

There was definitely a hoax made up solely from the tooth of an extinct pig...

& it was definitely either Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man

I just told you, it was Nebraska man, and it wasn't a hoax. the tooth was found and thought to come from a homonid because pig teeth are similar to some homonid teeth. though even the original discoverer kept the conclusion tentative, and wanted to look for more of the fossil before coming to a firm conclusion. The story was overblown by a popular publication, [size=-1]the Illustrated London News who printed a painting of the new missing link. Populat publications are well known for this sort of stupidity, since they want to sell copies. Nebraska man never entered mainstream scientific literature and thought, because there was far too little of it to even draw a conclusion from. it was later discovered to be a pig.
[/size]

 

[Jet Black]

I think he confuses flippancy with relevance. He seems to demonstrate all of the qualities of a poster type that we are no longer allowed to identify.

oh indeed. we mustn't identify that kind of poster.

 

[Jet Black]

1 of 'em was the hilarious cartoon booklet by Dr Jack T Chick

oh that would be the one where Jesus holds atoms together, right? and they get the theory of evolution wrong..... and so on.....

 

[gluadys]

Actually, I have several possible theories to this,
1. the most unlikely, is incorrect dating. This could be anything from human error to error in methods, and as already stated, unlikely, but none the less possible.

I am glad you list this as the most unlikely. Today's dating methods are much improved over those of even 20 years ago and are very accurate.

2. If the dinosaurs were extinct long before man, their bones would have been preserved before man's. It is hard to preserve a moving target in other words.

They were. That is the point of merle's post. All dinosaur bones were preserved earlier than 65 mya. All hominid bones were preserved less than 8 mya. There is a big gap between the most recent dinosaur find and the earliest hominid find.

3. Mirgration, it is possible that Man migrated to the area after dinosaurs were in that area. This could explain a lot of the discrepencies in the fossil record. Add the possible climatic changes, and a whole lot could be explained.

Dinosaurs lived all over the world. Humans also live all over the world. So, yes, humans have migrated into the areas inhabited by dinosaurs. But in every case there is an approximately 60 million year gap between the last dinosaur fossils and the earliest hominid fossils. So it's not a matter of just missing the dinosaurs by a few months.

Still want to maintain the evidence is inconclusive?

 

[gluadys]

No, this is where your weakness on scientific method is showing up again. Remember that scientific method is a technique used to generate explanations of observations. It is not used to speculate about what has NOT been observed.

Now, science is very much aware that we have not observed everything there is to observe, in the fossil record, or in the rest of nature. That is why scientific theories are held to be provisional.

The aim of a theory is to provide the best possible explanation of what HAS BEEN observed.

In my previous post I have put forth 3 possible answers, what explaination is the best is subjective after certain things are ruled invalid and the whole point of this discussion is that the TOE is not conclusive. So your statements further support my position.

I answered your three answers above. But those answers are not relevant to the point I am trying to make here.

You are suggesting that because there is a great deal of fossil evidence which has not yet been discovered or studied, that TOE & TOC are both inconclusive. That is not the case. Science is based always on evidence which has already been discovered even when the amount of evidence, vis-a-vis the theoretical total amount of evidence possible, is very small. We do not have to wait two or three millennia or however long it takes to look at all possible fossil evidence before deciding whether TOE or TOC is the better theory.

The better theory is the one which provides the best, most complete, most coherent explanation of the evidence we do have today.

On that basis, which is the basis of the scientific method, TOE is miles ahead of TOC as the better theory.

However, a theory which can offer explaination of the data cannot be discarded as disproven.

True. The point is that TOE does offer an explanation of the evidence, and TOC does not.

If you know of an explanation for the evidence provided by TOC, feel free to bring it forward. I'll be ready again to admit I made a mistake.

On the basis of the evidence we CAN observe, there was a time (I'm not sure of the details, but I would guess around 55 to 70 million years ago---maybe more recently) when there were neither cats nor dogs. But there were other mammals, mammals which do not exist today. (Large mammals do not appear until after the extinction of the dinosaurs, but smaller rodent and shrew-like mammals are found earlier.)

There are other viable possible answers for this phenomina

That's news to me. What are the other viable possible answers for these phenomena?

And if cats and dogs have a common ancestor, then their respective original species were in the same family. A species does not produce daughter species in different families.

And what proof do we have that cats and dogs have a common ancestor? I have always said that E was possible.

Did you miss the "if" in my statement?

You are side-stepping the point. You said that

It is possible [for cats and dogs to have a common ancestor], however, I highly doubt this to be the case. Remember when I said that the adaptability of animals to their environment is why I doubt that evidence will ever be found to support the evolution of animals crossing the species lines. In order for them to cross the species lines, it would be necessary for them to first be in the same family.

emphasis added.

And that is the point I am making here. If we have an original cat species (from whom all modern cats are descended) and an original dog species (from whom all modern dogs are descended) and if these original cat and dog species have themselves descended from a common ancestor, then the original cat and dog species were indeed in the same family.

Now, I am asking you to approach this as theory, not as fact. I am not claiming that this is what actually happened. But I am saying it is a plausible explanation of the evidence that going back far enough, we do not see cats and dogs in the fossil record. (In other words, there is no evidence that cats and dogs existed as separate species from the beginning of creation.) But we do see other mammals which do not exist today. In theory is it possible that one of those mammals could be a common ancestor of both the modern cat and dog families?

Thanks. At least you have now said openly that you think creationism is a more valid theory. However, you have not yet shown why you think this, or why any one else should..

I have already freely told you what theory I hold too and why. This should be nothing new to you.

It is, because you have objected several times, when people have assumed you are disposed to creationism, that they were prematurely labelling you.

Why must one be convinced to believe a theory rather than to simply discuss the data that has been observed? This is my goal. A discussion about what data has been observed and what possibilities it holds.

Discussing the data is what we have been trying to do, and what you have been avoiding. Instead, you want to do the impossible and take into account data that has not been discovered yet.

Now, when you say it is more likely that the species existed as separate species from the beginning of creation, are we still speaking only cats and dogs, or are you saying that all species were separate creations from the beginning of creation?

Also, do you think it more likely that all species were created at once, within a relatively short period of time, or that they were created at different times over the whole history of the earth?

I am not sure how to answer this without clarifing your question first.
1. How do these questions help our understanding of how to discuss the evidence without accusations and stereotypeing?
2. Are you asking me what I believe for what my beliefs lean towards?

We were speaking of cats and dogs and you opined that they were probably separate species from the beginning of creation. I wondered if you thought the same of other species or if you were commenting only on these two.

As for the second part of my question, the simultaneous creation of all species (within a few days) is necessarily part of YEC, but not necessary to OEC, which can accommodate several periods of creation separated by millions (billions?) of years.

You have stated that you have not yet made a decision as to which variety of TOC you consider most likely. So when you spoke of species being "separate creations from the beginning of creation", I felt I needed to clarify what you meant by "beginning of creation".

So, yes, I am asking in what direction you are leaning, because that would help me avoid stereotyping and trying to continue a discussion on the basis of beliefs I incorrectly assumed you held when in fact, you do not.

 

[razzelflabben]

I am expecting a very important phone call so I shall have to do my best at addressing these issues tomorrow. If the call doesn't come tonight, I might be slow in responding but I will get to it asap.

 

[razzelflabben]

This is simply dishonest. ALL claims of science are investigated and reviewed, by other scientists - the best people in the world to find errors and frauds. And, suprisingly enough, they have, indeed, found errors and frauds.

Your implication that some person claiming "fraud" is sufficient to make evidence inconclusive is ridiculous. Far more is needed. The fact that some creationists cite decades-old frauds which were long ago detected and corrected by scientists does nothing at all to demonstrate fraud in the thousands of bits of evidence for evolution which exist.

I am always surprised by what people object too or applaud, All I am trying to say is that until or unless the evidence provided is proven to not be fraudulant, we cannot assume it to be fact, we know this based on the evidence that some scientific "evidence" has been proven to be fraud. What I don't understand about my comment, is that when I mention scientific studies that support C, the E here are more than quick to point out that they are fraudulant. When the E are told that we cannot assume evidence to be fact for the same reason, the E here are quick to point out that fraud is not a part of scientific method. It is these double standards that I find most disturbing about the TOE and does more to push me to the C mindset than anything else, because it would seem that if the E are so afraid to face the facts that the evidence is not conclusive, then the evidence must be weak indeed. Much weaker than we are lead to believe.

I think you need to go back to the "authoritative" creationism sites. They ALL have a number of things in common as far as their beliefs go:

- God created all kinds separately - these kinds have no evolutionary overlap
- God created man separately - he is not descended from or related to any other animal
- the Theory of Evolution is false. Animals evolve within their "kind" only.

Age of the earth (which is basically the sole difference between OEC and YEC) is not at issue here.

-I can see God created all kinds separately, though this requires a definiton for kinds that is not offered. In order to close this gap we must define kind and I have accept the definition of species here in order to proceed with this discussion.
-God created man separately, again, that is built within the theory of creation as put forth in the Gen account of creation. In fact, it is not limited to man, but species were created seperately. Now this is not stated directly, as in the case of mankind, but is implied.
- the TOE is false, I have yet to hear this one from a C. I have heard them say that E is improbable, that it is not proven, that it is not fact, etc. Vs. the E claims that E is fact, that C is disproven, that C is only a belief system and cannot be proven scientifically, that all C are ignorant of the scientific evidence, etc. Seems to me that I must talk to all the right people in the C mindset, and all the wrong people in the E mindset, either that. What ever happened to communication? To listening, I knew listening skills were lacking in the world today, I just never really understood how lacking they really were.

I think YOU misunderstand what creationism is. It is NOT merely the believe that god created. It is a specific belief as to HOW he created.

I understand what is written in Gen. that is the root theory of C. I think you may not understand the root of the theory.

Well, I have a AIM I needed to address, so I got one in tonight, have a nice evening and try not to get to far ahead if you want me to keep up.

 

[The Bellman]

I am always surprised by what people object too or applaud, All I am trying to say is that until or unless the evidence provided is proven to not be fraudulant, we cannot assume it to be fact, we know this based on the evidence that some scientific "evidence" has been proven to be fraud. What I don't understand about my comment, is that when I mention scientific studies that support C, the E here are more than quick to point out that they are fraudulant. When the E are told that we cannot assume evidence to be fact for the same reason, the E here are quick to point out that fraud is not a part of scientific method. It is these double standards that I find most disturbing about the TOE and does more to push me to the C mindset than anything else, because it would seem that if the E are so afraid to face the facts that the evidence is not conclusive, then the evidence must be weak indeed. Much weaker than we are lead to believe.

The huge amount of evidence for evolution has been proven to be not fraudulent during over a hundred years of constant examination by various scientiests.

On the other hand, there is NO scientific evidence or studies that support creationism.

There are no double standards. Scientific theories, evidence and discoveries are all required to go through the same path of constant peer-review. This applies to theories regarding evolution and theories regarding creationism (if there were any).

I can see God created all kinds separately, though this requires a definiton for kinds that is not offered. In order to close this gap we must define kind and I have accept the definition of species here in order to proceed with this discussion.

No, you cannot. That is impossible to see, since none of us can "see" god creating these kinds.

If you accept the definition of "species" as that of "kind", then creationism has been conclusively falsified, since we have observed MANY instances of speciation.

God created man separately, again, that is built within the theory of creation as put forth in the Gen account of creation. In fact, it is not limited to man, but species were created seperately. Now this is not stated directly, as in the case of mankind, but is implied.

And it is not evidenced.

the TOE is false, I have yet to hear this one from a C. I have heard them say that E is improbable, that it is not proven, that it is not fact, etc. Vs. the E claims that E is fact, that C is disproven, that C is only a belief system and cannot be proven scientifically, that all C are ignorant of the scientific evidence, etc. Seems to me that I must talk to all the right people in the C mindset, and all the wrong people in the E mindset, either that. What ever happened to communication? To listening, I knew listening skills were lacking in the world today, I just never really understood how lacking they really were.

Then you should actually read some information about creationism. Creationism explicitly states that the theory of evolution is false, and that evolution (which they like to call "adaptation" or at most "micro-evolution") occurs only within "kinds" (which they cannot define).

I understand what is written in Gen. that is the root theory of C. I think you may not understand the root of the theory.

We are not talking about the "root of the theory". We are talking about creationism as it is believed today.

 

[gluadys]

Very long response coming up. I am breaking it up into separate posts.

What I am asserting is that the evidence is inconclusive and cannot be claimed as overwhelming or fact.

Let me get this straight. We have directly observed speciation. And you are still saying the evidence is not conclusive? You are saying that direct observation is not conclusive?

Please tell me, if direct observation is not conclusive, what in heaven's name is conclusive? It is well past time that you defined what you mean by "conclusive".

Why is it so important to convice people that one theory is more sound than another when either could be true or false?

It's not. But when one is true and the other is not, then it is important to know which is which.

Why is it so important to know truth?

You're a Christian and you ask this?

isn't the path to finding truth just as fun as knowing the truth?

Sure, but knowing a truth sets us onto a path toward more truth. Getting stuck in an untruth just leaves us stuck---we don't get the truth or the fun of finding truth.

I have only heard this claim made by E here on this thread and I would greatly like to know why this assertion is being made! I have yet to hear a C claim that species lines cannot be fuzzy. Again, I think this is one of those break down in communication things that I get testy about.

Maybe so, but the breakdown seems to be occurring among C & C so that is where to pursue this further.

That is basically saying that God created them to evolve. Evolution is the only mechanism I know that provides for animals to adapt to the world around them. Do you have any other alternative in mind?

What about a creator creating them to survive in a harsh environment.

That's not adaptation. That is designing them for that particular niche. If the species is originally created for that specific ecological niche it does not need to adapt to it. It is already fit for that environment. It was the presumption of 19th century creationists that this was the procedure the Creator followed. Each variation on a species was separately created for its own ecological niche. No adaptation was needed.

By adaptation, we mean introducing a change into an already existing species so that it can survive in an environment it was not originally created for.

What I am saying is that the way that change is introduced is evolution. In order to give species the ability to adapt to a unique environmental niche that they were not born in or originally designed for, or to adapt to a range of different habitats, the creator gave them the ability to evolve. The consequence of evolution is adaptation.

I do not know of any other means of adapting to a new environment. If TOC has presented one, I am open to hearing about it.

The problem with natural selection, is that even today we see species become extinct without leaving any adaptations in the gene pool. How then does E address this issue?

Quite simply. As noted above, adaptation is a two-step process. The second step (selection) cannot take place unless the first step (variation) has taken place.

If a new environmental stress is introduced, natural selection will select the variation best suited to deal with it. But it may be that no existing variation is capable of dealing with the new environmental challenge. If that is the case, there is no magic wand that will make the needed variation appear just because it is needed. And without a suitable adaptation, the species becomes extinct.