Evolution is not science

[Split Rock]

The evolutionist Jerry Coyne has written a book called "Why evolution is true". He explains in the book evolution is not observable.

If you are expecting a book with the title, "Why Evolution is True" to contain proof for the theory of evolution, you will be disappointed. The book is just a list of excuses why evolutionists can’t prove evolution is true.

Evolution can not be proven becuase nobody has ever seen it happening! Science is meant to be based on direct observation but evolutionists like Jerry Coyne believes in things they can not see!

Why We’ve Never Seen evolution

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution in the laboratory or in nature. Here is his excuse for why we have not.

(Atleast the evolutionist Jerry Coyne admits macroevolution can not be observed)



He asserts, without proof, that macroevolution is occurring today, while admitting that one can’t see it happening. That is, genetic information is supposedly arising spontaneously that will create a new kind of creature. He just knows it, even though nobody can actually see it!. The alleged reason nobody can see it is because it happens so slowly and no human being has ever seen it happen - however this is anti-scientific method which is based on observation.

Am I the only one who thinks it is ironic that a poster calling himself "Pyramidologist" is claiming that the theory of evolution is not science?

 

[Loudmouth]

It may take time but you will see the "proof evolutionist promote" is Scientism bias.

No, it is empirical evidence.

Once again, to start with godless perspective what is the "interpretated" is godless and natural physical processes bias.

No such assumptions are made. It just so happens that there is no evidence for gods, so there is no reason to propose gods to begin with.

But then came the realization of Scientism is based on faith,

That's a lie. It is based on empirical facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was said that three men were found alive after being thrown into a burning incinerator.

Given the opportunity for a scientific examination of the evidence discovered following the event, what would the scientific conclusion be regarding that claim – is it likely to be true, or likely to be false?

What would be the evidence left over after Santa Claus goes up and down you chimney? What would be the evidence left behind when the Easter Bunny hides an egg? What evidence does a Leprechaun leave in a pot of gold?

 

[Loudmouth]

However this does not suggest evolution. Why? There are no transition fossils.

Did you hear that? With so called over a half a billion years of Cambrian to Pliestocene deposition all groups we should see hundreds if not thousands of transitions from Ancestral to Dependent fossil sequences in the same stratigraphic group - but we have none. Yes, none.

Found them for you.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/hominids2_big.jpg

Why do you have to tell such big lies in order to defend your beliefs?

 

[Doveaman]

What would be the evidence left over after Santa Claus goes up and down you chimney?

Gifts.

What would be the evidence left behind when the Easter Bunny hides an egg?

A hidden egg.

What evidence does a Leprechaun leave in a pot of gold?

Gold.

I'm assuming they are all real.


Your turn:

It was said that three men were found alive after being thrown into a burning incinerator.

Given the opportunity for a scientific examination of the evidence discovered following the event, what would the scientific conclusion be regarding that claim – is it likely to be true, or likely to be false?

Here's the evidence that was discovered:

"The fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them." - (Dan 3:27).

 

[Heissonear]

No, it is empirical evidence.

No such assumptions are made. It just so happens that there is no evidence for gods, so there is no reason to propose gods to begin with.

That's a lie. It is based on empirical facts.

Don't make me laugh.

You retract to a "purest" in science, which is your ground to be "fualtless". I.e. "we scientists base everything on evidence". You do not if you are a Scientismist.


Scientism, like it or not, is a religion.


The definition of "Scientism" taken from Wikipedia:

"Scientism is a term used, often pejoratively, to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

.

 

[Heissonear]

Found them for you.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/hominids2_big.jpg

Why do you have to tell such big lies in order to defend your beliefs?

You are an internet browser and follower of what men say.

It is the biggest shame evolutionist face is the fossil record, and the lack of any Ancestral to Descendents transition fossils in the same geographic stratigraphic column. Do not play those paleontologists and evolutionist games of a fossil here and a fossil there, the mix and match from different geographical locations. That game has been played long enough.

As in the earlier post, there should be hundreds if not thousands of stratigraphic sequential transition from one species to another - bit there are zero - not even one to show.

Get real. Don't play Google cut-n-paste or internet "how to reply to Creationists about ....."

.

 

[Heissonear]

It was said that three men were found alive after being thrown into a burning incinerator.

Given the opportunity for a scientific examination of the evidence discovered following the event, what would the scientific conclusion be regarding that claim – is it likely to be true, or likely to be false?

Here's the evidence that was discovered:

"The fire had not harmed their bodies, nor was a hair of their heads singed; their robes were not scorched, and there was no smell of fire on them." - (Dan 3:27).

This is how real science should work: the Power from Above can at times be "observedl and show "super natural" evidence. HOWEVER, when this "Supernatural" occurs it is not in the rigid framework or of the requirement to be "repeatable".

The Heavens Rule, not the natural or man posing "scientific rules" to the Spiritual Realm and Power.

It is those who believe in Scientism who state there is no Spiritual Realm and an event "must have reproducibility". Such are those in bondage to the elements and blind to the Spiritual.

.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You are an internet browser and follower of what men say.

And one of those men is not you. Infuriating, isn't it?

 

[USincognito]

It is the biggest shame evolutionist face is the fossil record, and the lack of any Ancestral to Descendents transition fossils in the same geographic stratigraphic column.

What the heck does this mean? It's gibberish. You appear to be suggesting that fossils of both basal and derived (the proper words you're looking for) species should be found in a singular location and all within the same stratum. Or do you mean within different strata and a singular location? Or do you mean in a general area like "eastern Pennsylvania", "Kenya" and "coastal Asia"?

I ask because how the heck, given how infrequent fossilization occurs, is that supposed to work for migratory beings or marine beings like whales and fish/tetrapod transistionals?

 

[Heissonear]

What the heck does this mean? It's gibbeI'ish. You appear to be suggesting that fossils of both basal and derived (the proper words you're looking for) species should be found in a singular location and all within the same stratum. Or do you mean within different strata and a singular location? You mean in a general area like "eastern Pennsylvania", "Kenya" and "coastal Asia"?

I ask because how the heck, given how infrequent fossilization occurs, is that supposed to work for migratory beings or marine beings like whales and fish/tetrapod transistionals?

You ask some good qurstions, but spare me the "how infrequent fossilization occurs" rationalization. We have a 24,000 mile circumference earth with massive land and sea area and at least half a billion years of time for life to form, transition through mutation, and become perserved for later examination.

Get off your horse that fossils are rare. Over only a100,000 year period think of the amount of hurricanes, natural floods, and turbidites that occurs. Your uniformitarianism needs to be calibrated.

I'm a stratigrapher and understand depositional environments and preservation conditions for soft and hard body parts. Along with burrowing creatures that can wind up buried, by multiple common events, leaving hard parts.

.

 

[Heissonear]

What the heck does this mean? It's gibberish. You appear to be suggesting that fossils of both basal and derived (the proper words you're looking for) species should be found in a singular location and all within the same stratum. Or do you mean within different strata and a singular location? Or do you mean in a general area like "eastern Pennsylvania", "Kenya" and "coastal Asia"?

I ask because how the heck, given how infrequent fossilization occurs, is that supposed to work for migratory beings or marine beings like whales and fish/tetrapod transistionals?

Simple specifics:

1. Any sequential strata over a 1 to 10 million year period

Even large depositions like the Mesaverde Group which averages greater than 2500 feet thickness during the Late Cretaceous period, representing roughly 78 to 72 million years ago

2. Prefer the geographic area of the strata of 10 mile diameter - no more than 100 miles

Like Southern Utah, West Central Colorado, etc.

3. No inferred fossil fragments; no mix and match of species inferred from the oldest

4. Obvious morphology changes - fossils that show step by step change through time



There is a reason all paleontology texts do not have such readily available. All they have are mix and match of species - a blend of "inferred" lineage, but no transitional series represented.

.

 

[HitchSlap]

The evolutionist Jerry Coyne has written a book called "Why evolution is true"...

Yes. Yes he did.

 

[lasthero]

I'm a stratigrapher

You know what? I call BS. I don't think you're a stratigrapher at all. Prove it.

 

[Heissonear]

You know what? I call BS. I don't think you're a stratigrapher at all. Prove it.

You have it reversed - I'm calling you out to prove your science. By formal education and experience I'm exposing the problems with the science you and other Evolutionists stand on and call settled.

Where are the step by step sequential morphological changes to life forms in the rock record? The Mesaverde Formation has over 2500 feet of strata showing ebb and flow of inland sea coastal to marine sedimentation, including numerous coal seams. Such spans over more than 6 million years. Dinosaur and "first" mammalians are in such a formation.

Where is your evidence? Is this a Creation you know little of or did evolution occur? Stick to the science and answer up. Unless all you are here for is just a shouting match like your post tries to provoke.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have it reversed - I'm calling you out to prove your science. By formal education and experience I'm exposing the problems with the science you and other Evolutionists stand on and call settled.

Where are the step by step sequential morphological changes to life forms in the rock record? The Mesaverde Formation has over 2500 feet of strata showing ebb and flow of inland sea coastal to marine sedimentation, including numerous coal seams. Such spans over more than 6 million years. Dinosaur and "first" mammalians are in such a formation.

Where is your evidence? Is this a Creation you know little of or did evolution occur? Stick to the science and answer up. Unless all you are here for is just a shouting match like your post tries to provoke.

You seem to not understand scientific evidence.

We don't need to prove every step of evolution. If you understood geology you would know why we expect many unsolvable "gaps" in the fossil record.

What we do have to do is show that all fossils fit into the evolutionary paradigm, and they do.


I would be happy to go over the concept of scientific evidence so that you do not make such a silly mistake asking for unreasonable evidence again.

 

[lasthero]

By formal education and experience I'm exposing the problems with the science you and other Evolutionists stand on and call settled.

Except you don't actually do that. You assert things, then state that, because you're a stratigrapher, that automatically makes what you say unquestionable. The way you bandy your title about, the way you can't even go a single page, rarely a single post, without throwing out credentials - you reek of someone who wants people to think he's something he's really not.

It's an argument from authority with yourself as the authority. So, yeah, I call BS.

 

[classicalhero]

You seem to not understand scientific evidence.

We don't need to prove every step of evolution. If you understood geology you would know why we expect many unsolvable "gaps" in the fossil record.

It seems like you don't understand scientific evidence, since you have given any and you are just giving excuses. If the there are transitional forms between the species then they should show up and yet you have not shown one iota of evidence to back up your hypothesis. You have just simply been using weasel words to try and convince people that you don't need to show the evidence. No wonder why Darwin was so worried about the fossil record.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems like you don't understand scientific evidence, since you have given any and you are just giving excuses. If the there are transitional forms between the species then they should show up and yet you have not shown one iota of evidence to back up your hypothesis. You have just simply been using weasel words to try and convince people that you don't need to show the evidence. No wonder why Darwin was so worried about the fossil record.

Actually I did. I mentioned the fossil record that is only evidence for evolution.

Like Heissonear you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Nor do you know what "should" show up in the fossil record. There are so many different transitional fossils that most paleontologists now treat all fossils as transitional.

By definition there is no scientific evidence for creationism, of course that is all the fault of creationists. Another fact that you would understand if you knew what scientific evidence was.

 

[Heissonear]

Actually I did. I mentioned the fossil record that is only evidence for evolution.

Like Heissonear you do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. Nor do you know what "should" show up in the fossil record. There are so many different transitional fossils that most paleontologists now treat all fossils as transitional.

By definition there is no scientific evidence for creationism, of course that is all the fault of creationists. Another fact that you would understand if you knew what scientific evidence was.

That makes two tap dances around the focused issue - present evidence for transitional fossils.

You have been asked to present evidence and you deliver none.

Again, we are asking for a step by step presentation of fossils showing morphological changes from one species to another in sequential order in any strata. The strata can be the Glen Canyon Group, Mesaverde, and the like, which are each thousands of feet thick and cover millions of years time span.

Why make this complicated? If evolution is based on evidence than let's see it.

Enough tap dancing - with simpleton statements like "if you understood the concept of scientific evidence" ; "there is no scientific evidence for Creationism", etc.

Show us the evidence for evolution, specifically clear step by step morphological changes from one species to another in the fossil record.
.