Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Oncedeceived]

Then you would be wrong.

We will see.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not true. I'm not sure about the animals - though there are a number that are clear arthropod precoursers - but plants and fungi certainly had some. And the simple fact that life existed in the pre-Cambrian shows there were precoursers to those phyla that rose during the Cambrian.

Well by all means, if I am wrong then please provide the evidence that I am unaware of that show clear evidence of precursors.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, we both don't know that. I know we don't see them because they are contrary to the constraints of evolution. And if we did see them, the fact that they are anomalous would be a falsification of the theory. Why is this so hard to grasp?

What do you feel I am not getting? When evolution was developed, we already had a historic footprint of what life forms in the norm meant. We know that the examples given are those that are completely out of the norm. Evolution notwithstanding.

This is some clever spin, but it's not the point I was trying to make. You boldly averred that it's impossible to falsify evolution. I provided you with numerous examples which would immediately falsify evolution. You can handwave them away if you want, but the proverb about 1 white crow is all the more true if we were to find one with wings and forelimbs.

I am not trying to be clever or handwave them away. The examples are not in the norm of living forms. We knew this prior to the theory of evolution. So to claim that they would falsify evolution is rather tongue in cheek.

No, that's not a fact. And I wish you'd check out Theobald's 29 Evidences essays for precise examples. He bases his predictions on Darwin's writings with some modifications for the genetically based ones and gives potential falsifications. That said, let's poop or get off the pot. How about you list 3 data points that conflict with or outright falsify the original theory and we'll see if they hold water or not?

1. Darwin claimed that there would be a gradual emergence of Biological Complexity and the existence of Numerous transitional forms leading to Phyla-Level body plans. In fact, he claimed that the pre-cambrian should be swarming in life forms leading up the the ones found in the cambrian.

2. That new forms (body plans or phyla) would be present throughout history.

This assertion is so ironic because the new data has only served to buttress evolution and contradict Creationism.

I don't see how any of these contradict Creationism.

- There are no ape men.

what?

-- Here's 15 different hominin fossils.

Where? Was a link suppose to be here?

- Humans have 46 chromosomes, chimps have 48.

This is not conclusive of common descent.

-- Here's telomeres and centomeres in human chromosome 2.
Etc. Etc.

Link?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why in the world did you say the Cambrian disproves Darwin?

The evolutionary time frame is only about 5 million years which was once described as a minute in a twenty-four hour day. Not what Darwin predicted. Then the precursors that should have been swarming in the pre-cambrian were not there. Those that were there died out prior to the cambrian.

Could you please stop lying about the Cambrian? This isn't even remotely what we see in the fossil record.

Lying? Really? I provided a source from a well known Paleontologist, Stephen Gould, are you calling him a liar?

 

[Chalnoth]

That could be said to be true, unfortunately, the original theory was very specific about what would falsify it. Darwin said himself that if there were no swarms of life that lead up to the cambrian fauna that it would falsify his theory.

a) Where did he say that? What, specifically were his words, and what was the full context?
b) There were swarms of life that led up to the Cambrian.

 

[Chalnoth]

The evolutionary time frame is only about 5 million years which was once described as a minute in a twenty-four hour day. Not what Darwin predicted. Then the precursors that should have been swarming in the pre-cambrian were not there. Those that were there died out prior to the cambrian.

Well, I responded to part of this in my previous post, so I'll respond to another problem with this line of reasoning. What Darwin himself said is completely irrelevant. Science isn't about people, or what people say. It's about how the evidence matches or doesn't match the connections that the theory in question draws between different facts. If we had found Darwin to be wrong on one particular point (which we did: he was wrong on quite a few points, it turns out), it wouldn't have any bearing whatsoever on the theory of evolution.

If you want to falsify evolution, you have to look at the theory itself. You have to look at its logical structure, at what specific predictions can be deduced from the theory, and whether or not the evidence matches with those specific predictions. None of this depends upon what any one man did or did not say.

Unlike religion, science has no prophets or holy books. Period.

Lying? Really? I provided a source from a well known Paleontologist, Stephen Gould, are you calling him a liar?

No, I'm saying that you are lying by misrepresenting his words.

 

[Astridhere]

Your crazed fantasies continue to befuddle yet amuse me. Could you explain - in detail - how a modern H. sapiens in the Cambrian would be "reworked" into evolution. You could also try the crow with forelimbs and wings. Either will be entertaining I'm sure.

Yeah sure, I am surprised you have not hear of it before..it goes like this. Researcher finds fossil in strata where it shouldn't be that disproves or challenges evolution, then proceed to wave their wand and go gobble gobble happened with the strata and presto the fossil suddenly is dated to where TOE says it should be.

Here is an example.....and the link provides more....

"Finding Confuciusornis sanctus and other birds as fully-formed, modern-looking varieties in the Late Jurassic layers presented a serious challenge to the view that Archaeopteryx should be identified as a transitional form. Strata within the Jehol Group also contain placental mammals and angiosperm plants, which suggested that the prevailing evolutionary theory would have to be radically changed to fit a Late Jurassic age for these layers. For this reason it was considered necessary to adjust the age of these Late Jurassic layers forward to the Early Cretaceous instead of revising the evolutionary concept in light of new evidence from China. Other evidence of suspect origin and quality was also accepted to support the prevailing ‘dinosaur to bird’ evolutionary hypothesis against the fresh evidence that was accumulating from the Jehol Group strata."
Chinese fossil layers and the uniformitarian re-dating of the Jehol Group

So if humans or any mammal were found in precambrian deposits the same thing would happen. A wave of the wand and gobble gobble and presto they would be recent and mixed in with precambrian fossils.

Here are a couple of different examples of reworking data.
Tympanonesiotes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seMissourian.com: National News: Analysis: Famed bird fossil is really a kind of dinosaur (07/28/11)

 

[Chalnoth]

"Finding Confuciusornis sanctus and other birds as fully-formed, modern-looking varieties in the Late Jurassic layers presented a serious challenge to the view that Archaeopteryx should be identified as a transitional form. Strata within the Jehol Group also contain placental mammals and angiosperm plants, which suggested that the prevailing evolutionary theory would have to be radically changed to fit a Late Jurassic age for these layers. For this reason it was considered necessary to adjust the age of these Late Jurassic layers forward to the Early Cretaceous instead of revising the evolutionary concept in light of new evidence from China. Other evidence of suspect origin and quality was also accepted to support the prevailing ‘dinosaur to bird’ evolutionary hypothesis against the fresh evidence that was accumulating from the Jehol Group strata."
Chinese fossil layers and the uniformitarian re-dating of the Jehol Group

Um, this is positively ridiculous.

Three points:
1. The ordering of geological layers is absolutely and irrevocably fixed. It is almost completely impossible to get the ordering of geological layers wrong, because it isn't possible for a later layer to be deposited below an earlier one, with the exception of the extremely occasional cave or overhang. Every once in a while, a bunch of rock may be turned upside-down, but this is both rare and blatantly obvious. So no, the ordering of geological layers is fixed, and can't be adjusted.
2. Shifting part of the late Jurassic to the early Cretaceous would be a naming change that would have nothing whatsoever to do with the dating or relative order of the geological ages. The geological ages are generally named based upon their fossil contents, so it wouldn't be a complete surprise to see scientists argue for a slightly different naming scheme. This doesn't change anything about the dates of the layers, or the order of evolution: it's just an argument that we did a somewhat poor job of naming the various eras. It just doesn't have any impact, one way or the other, on evolution.
3. Arguing that part of the late Jurassic should actually be categorized in the following geological era is a far, far cry from finding a mammal in precambrian deposits.

 

[Astridhere]

This here makes me believe you have no idea what the term even means.
Then you would be demonstrating how plausible my examples are, which you haven't
You really consider having a bird show up before a dinosaur in the fossil record is that outlandish? You'd be right, but only because according to evolution its impossible. If evolution is false then its not outlandish at all.
That is correct, thanks, and evolution is false because there are many examples of ancestors cohabitating with their alleged and supposed decendants.
So really.. You are just admitting the strength of evolution here.
Non plausible sceanrios do not strengthen evolution they belittle it.
There have been alot of things offered all of which are perfectly possible if evolution is wrong, I especially like the idea of an animal with wings and front legs.
Well I can give you a whale with human neural spindles and a frog with human legs. I can also give you the excuse as...convergent evolution
The simple fact is all these examples are perfectly reasonable if evolution were completely false, you only think they arent is cause you know your wrong.
Ummm, have you missed the fact that I am a biblical creationists and agree evolution is wrong.
If that is not is, explain to me in your own words why we should think its rediculous that we might one day find say..a winged rat fossil.
What are you on about?
(4legs, 2 wings.)

So I have been saying evolution relies on a plethora of non plausible scenarios to keep it alive and you agree with me. Thanks

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, I responded to part of this in my previous post, so I'll respond to another problem with this line of reasoning. What Darwin himself said is completely irrelevant. Science isn't about people, or what people say. It's about how the evidence matches or doesn't match the connections that the theory in question draws between different facts. If we had found Darwin to be wrong on one particular point (which we did: he was wrong on quite a few points, it turns out), it wouldn't have any bearing whatsoever on the theory of evolution.

These were not just minor points Chalnoth. They are pretty significant. For life to be on earth for 3.8 million years or so and only have bacteria for the most part of that, and then a sudden appearance of all the phyla extant today. In fact, there were more than there are today. So in that we too see something contradictory to the theory. If we completely leave Darwin out and his predictions, I okay with that. But his theory as stated was falsified. If you want to claim that it doesn't matter then fine.

If you want to falsify evolution, you have to look at the theory itself. You have to look at its logical structure, at what specific predictions can be deduced from the theory, and whether or not the evidence matches with those specific predictions. None of this depends upon what any one man did or did not say.

What theory then are we speaking of? Not Darwinian evolution, then what?

Unlike religion, science has no prophets or holy books. Period.

We you not the one that stated that evolution was not just a theory but a fact?

What we know of micro-evolution I would agree. I think that it is clear that organisms inherit traits and pass them on to following generations. I do not think that there are convincing species to species transitions. Macro-evolution is where most non-evolutionist make the distinction.

No, I'm saying that you are lying by misrepresenting his words.

Alright, you have called me a liar. Prove to me how I have misrepresented his words? I provided his words in context. So, how would you claim I am lying? I may disagree with you, I may even at times be wrong about what I say, but you can count on the fact that I will not lie. I don't lie.

 

[Chalnoth]

So I have been saying evolution relies on a plethora of non plausible scenarios to keep it alive and you agree with me. Thanks

Lots of very much true things seem implausible to many. Many think it's implausible that eyewitness testimony in a court of law is horribly unreliable. And yet it is.

 

[Astridhere]

Um, this is positively ridiculous.

Three points:
1. The ordering of geological layers is absolutely and irrevocably fixed. It is almost completely impossible to get the ordering of geological layers wrong, because it isn't possible for a later layer to be deposited below an earlier one. Every once in a while, a bunch of rock may be turned upside-down, but this is both rare and blatantly obvious. So no, the ordering of geological layers is fixed, and can't be adjusted. One would think so but apparently evo reseachers have magic wands
2. Shifting part of the late Jurassic to the early Cretaceous would be a naming change that would have nothing whatsoever to do with the dating or relative order of the geological ages. The geological ages are generally named based upon their fossil contents, so it wouldn't be a complete surprise to see scientists argue for a slightly different naming scheme. This doesn't change anything about the dates of the layers, or the order of evolution: it's just an argument that we did a somewhat poor job of naming the various eras. It just doesn't have any impact, one way or the other, on evolution. It will continue to be a poor job excuse every time you find something where the dating does not align with TOE.
3. Arguing that part of the late Jurassic should actually be categorized in the following geological era is a far, far cry from finding a mammal in precambrian deposits.The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

Well you can say what you like really, the point being scientists rework their fossils with convolutions of all sorts to make them fit the evolutionary paradigm often, making evolution unfalsifiable and a human in the precambrian would be no different.
..and why would anyone think it would be?

This link is just a few examples of it as were the others.
Chinese fossil layers and the uniformitarian re-dating of the Jehol Group

 

[Chalnoth]

What theory then are we speaking of? Not Darwinian evolution, then what?

Just because he happens to be the person that wrote down the first iteration of the theory in no way, shape, or form means that everything he said regarding evolution was correct. It wasn't. He was completely wrong about the closest living relatives of whales, for example (though in his defense, I don't believe he ever expressed certainty about it).

Furthermore, the theory of evolution has changed significantly since Darwin first penned it. We've learned a lot more about how evolution works than Darwin could even dream of. The reason why it is sometimes given his name is because he was the first one to write down the central idea of evolution, the idea of natural selection.

We you not the one that stated that evolution was not just a theory but a fact?

You clearly still have no clue what a theory is. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. The theory of evolution explains how life changes over time. The fact of evolution simply observes that life has changed over time. It's sort of like gravity: the fact of gravity is that objects fall. A theory of gravity explains how they fall.

What we know of micro-evolution I would agree. I think that it is clear that organisms inherit traits and pass them on to following generations. I do not think that there are convincing species to species transitions. Macro-evolution is where most non-evolutionist make the distinction.

There is no hard distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is just what micro-evolution over a longer period of time looks like.

Alright, you have called me a liar. Prove to me how I have misrepresented his words? I provided his words in context. So, how would you claim I am lying? I may disagree with you, I may even at times be wrong about what I say, but you can count on the fact that I will not lie. I don't lie.

You said this:

There was a sudden appearance of all modern phyla, which would have falsified the gradual evolution required by ToE but Gould came to the rescue with punctuated equilibrium. No falsification there.

That. Is. A. Lie.

It absolutely, positively does not falsify evolution, because nothing at all about the theory of evolution requires that it always be the same speed at all times.

 

[Chalnoth]

Could you please learn to use the quote functionality, Astridhere? Just enclose the text you want to quote in [quote][/quote] brackets. If you want to get slightly fancy, and leave a link to the previous post, you can copy and paste the [quote="<name>, post: <post number>"] bit that appears at the start of your post when you hit the quote button.

One would think so but apparently evo reseachers have magic wands

What!? You are really tempting me to break all kinds of CF rules here. Do you enjoy continuing on with your absurd interpretations even after they've been proven absolutely false? Changing the categories of geological ages does not alter their orders or ages. It's just a name change. That is all.

It will continue to be a poor job excuse every time you find something where the dating does not align with TOE.

It's not an excuse for anything. Just a name change. That is all.

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

Please. Find one example of geological reordering. One. Try it. You will fail.

Renaming is not reworking. It's just realizing that the old names were a bit misleading.

 

[Loudmouth]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

humans = apes
so
apes = human
unless there is some difference between the two?

​

It's clear as day. I'm just illustrating your avoidance of the question because answering my question would clarify your point....but it opposes your agenda and so must be ignored.

All I am pointing out is your ignorance of how a nested hierarchy works.

Poodle = dog

dog = poodle

Therefore, a great dane, being a dog, is also a poodle, correct?

 

[Astridhere]

Lots of very much true things seem implausible to many. Many think it's implausible that eyewitness testimony in a court of law is horribly unreliable. And yet it is.

Sorry apes building huts 1.7mya and apes leaving footprints 3.7mya after Ardi having chimp feet at 4.4mya are both examples of the non plausible.

Anything is possible, but an ape or half witted human will never build a hut no matter how many times you demonstrate it to them. A curved fingered tree dweller 3ft tall never have left human footprints either, no matter how much they try to humanize afarensis in desperation.

Clearly there is evidence of fully functioning mankind present at the time of these apes, which should disprove evolution and give support to creationist paradigms. It is because TOE is unfalsifiable and can invent any non plausible scenario in explanation that evolutionists will likely and unfortunately, never see the truth.

For example a curved fingered ape must have left these footprints no matter how ridiculous it sounds and the fact that they thought Lucy should still have apey like feet, because according to TOE humans could not possibly have been around 3.7mya to leave these footprints. So let's pretend she has near human feet, although we have found none, and flogg this off to the public as evidence for evolution!

 

[AV1611VET]

Poodle = dog

dog = poodle

Therefore, a great dane, being a dog, is also a poodle, correct?

All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.

 

[Delphiki]

All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.

All humans are apes, but not all apes are humans.

 

[Astridhere]

Could you please learn to use the quote functionality, Astridhere? Just enclose the text you want to quote in brackets. If you want to get slightly fancy, and leave a link to the previous post, you can copy and paste the [quote="<name>, post: <post number>"] bit that appears at the start of your post when you hit the quote button.


What!? You are really tempting me to break all kinds of CF rules here. Do you enjoy continuing on with your absurd interpretations even after they've been proven absolutely false? Changing the categories of geological ages does not alter their orders or ages. It's just a name change. That is all.
Its a name change that alters the dating to fit your predetermined paradigm. GET IT!

This in my book is comparable to fraud and conning the public.

It's not an excuse for anything. Just a name change. That is all.


Please. Find one example of geological reordering. One. Try it. You will fail.
I have given you plenty of examples of fraudulent changes to suit
Renaming is not reworking. It's just realizing that the old names were a bit misleading.

The strata is the strata. It is the desperation of researchers that use woffle to make fossils fit in where they should be. Mistakes abound and dates change all the time to be the new flavour of the month. In fact humans and chimp have separated from apes 4,5,6,7,8, mya depending on which researcher you talk to and they fit the fossils to suit and chop and change accordingly.

Here are more examples.

Palaeontologists struggle to account for such diversity of animals and plants that are found in one region, and such conflicting evidence is contrary to existing theories of evolutionary progression. The reason given for such diversity is that isolation allowed relic species to survive, and then once isolation was breached, the region became a centre for diversification and colonisation by cosmopolitan species. More likely it demonstrates that such strict classification of layers into separate ages is incorrect and that all the strata were deposited in rapid succession. More recently a beaver like mammal Castorocauda lutrasimilis19 has been identified from the Jurassic Jiulongshan Formation of Inner Mongolia, with stated age of around 164 Ma, again presenting a serious challenge to the established evolutionary biostratigraphical evidence.
Chinese fossil layers and the uniformitarian re-dating of the Jehol Group



So you are correct the strata remains the strata but the desperation of your researcher allows them to wave their hand, reclassify strata and wollah the fossil now does not falsify evolution...when really it has.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

So I have been saying evolution relies on a plethora of non plausible scenarios to keep it alive and you agree with me. Thanks

I'm saying they are non plausible BECAUSE evolution is most likely true.

It would be perfectly plausible in your world view(were evolution is false), a winged rat should be just as plausible as a bat.

I am asking you that if evolution is false, why would it be non-plausible to find a winged rat in your opinion?

I possit that you can not find any reason why a winged rat would be non-plausible without using the nested hierarchy of evolution.(which is exactly what it would be disproven if you found that winged rat.)