Evolution's Brick Wall

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, but hemogoblins - you have to watch out for them!

Yes, they are the worst. Pesky little creatures....

https://starbounder.org/Hemogoblin

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hemogoblin

Nobody has ever reported seeing one though. Which isn't surprising because your chances of surviving an encounter with them are near zero.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Apparently, at least one creationist that boasts of a high IQ on here claims this exact thing.

Is it the one that keeps on claiming to have credentials as a geochemist?

 

[Job 33:6]

It is impossible because...maybe this is the dilemma. People have to be familiar with science to understand. For example, if I asked you where the nearest Devonian outcrop of rock is, from your location, would you be able to answer? If not, then that could be an issue, because you wouldnt be able to understand the fossil succession if you werent first familiar with the geologic succession and where rocks are.

If you are able to answer the question, then we would be able to discuss where else on the planet, devonian rocks are exposed, and where underground theyre located as well. These things are necessary in understanding how the prediction was made.

@inquiring mind just checking in.

Did you happen to figure out where the nearest devonian outcrop of rock is from your location? And beyond that, did you happen to see all the non-devonian rock around it?

 

[tas8831]

Is it the one that keeps on claiming to have credentials as a geochemist?

No, it is the one that keeps claiming that the aorta can send motor impulses to the larynx via the recurrent laryngeal nerve...

 

[Heissonear]

People don't just randomly get on a helicopter, fly to a random spot in the Canadian tundra and pick out a random rock and just "get lucky" in finding the right fossil with just the right qualities. In just the right rock type in just the right depth in just the right spacial location .

And also, the inverse, people don't find such things in places where evolution wouldn't predict them to be. There is no Cambrian bunny nor any analogous fossil in 300 years of fossil discoveries, it doesn't happen.

We don't find tiktaaliks randomly in Cambrian or ordovician or silurian rock (which would contradict the theory). We don't find birds in any paleozoic rock, we don't find mammals in paleozoic rock. We don't find reptiles in devonian or silurian or ordovician or Cambrian rock. We don't find amphibians in silurian ordovician or Cambrian rock. We always find hybrids in between such as tiktaalik.

And this is reality.

Some people deny this. They'll say, oh well, tiktaalik isn't a transitional, it's just a fish. But this is just false because tiktaalik has a head like an alligator and a neck that turns and wrist bones that turn and spiracles for breathing air, and robust ribs and shoulders. Fish don't have these qualities. It's not a fish. But it does have scales like a fish. And it has fins like a fish and gills like a fish. But it's not just a fish.

And deniers do this all the time and they repeat the same nonsense, all the time. As if they believe that in repeating the nonsense, they will literally turn it into a reality in which others around them might believe it and repeat it too.

And we see this right here in these forums. People repeating the same anti scientific nonsense.

And of course it's disturbing for people who are scientists like myself and other here to see non scientists saying that were ignorant of what we study or are part of some grand conspiracy to hide the truth from the public.

You are dancing around the OP.

Dance here and there because you have no proof to bring forth, only side discussion.

You pretent what is transitional without the morphological details inbetween.

You know, in science it is called evidence.

What you present requires conjecture to accept as true. You do know that.

 

[Heissonear]

Why does one that falsely claimed scientific knowledge never address science?

Now please present the mechanism via which this happened - you know, like all this mutation and selection and stuff that we know about for evolution.

Evolution is the 'observation', mutation+selection+drift and such is the mechanism, for which there is a good bit of evidence.

Merely postulating "God" is not an actual mechanism.

What a twist in words.

You have zero proof in the fossil record that shows evolution happened.

Zero.

Again, as an example, show me fossil by fossil those inbetween any two of the creatures on the illustration below to show one turned into the other - no conjecture needed..

But to date you have showed no (zero) fossils between the illustrated below. That means the classification system presented is fabricated. It was linked by conjecture.

Without fossils between them face up that one on such illustration never evolved into the other on the illustration and take the classification system link away from them, there is no true link of evolution between them.

 

[tas8831]

What a twist in words.

How so?

I know you will not explain - you never explain anything - but please explain how positing God as creator is a mechanism.

You have zero proof in the fossil record that shows evolution happened.

Zero.

You have zero proof that creation happened.

Zero.

Again, as an example, show me fossil by fossil those inbetween any two of the creatures on the illustration below to show one turned into the other - no conjecture needed..

Sorry, but this demand was, frankly, stupid the first time you made it.

To demonstrate how stupid your demand was, allow me to turn the tables -

Again, as an example, show me fossil by fossil those in between a normal phenotype parent and their achondroplastic offspring to show one turned into the other - no conjecture needed..

But to date you have showed no (zero) fossils between the illustrated below.

Yes, I have showed no (zero) fossils.

Unlike you and so many creationists, I do not pretend to have expertise that I do not have. I am not a paleontologist and so do not pretend to be one. I am not going to waste my time finding fossils that you will just ignore or reject for no reason as many others have done. You do not even WANT answers, you just want to be able to pretend your middle eastern beliefs are true, no matter what.

Do you think nobody notices this? Do you think nobody notices how you ignore everything people write?

That means the classification system presented is fabricated. It was linked by conjecture.

I don't think you even know what those words mean. I think you are like a 15 year old home schooled kid, to be honest.

Without fossils between them face up that one on such illustration never evolved into the other on the illustration and take the classification system link away from them, there is no true link of evolution between them.

Without the bones of every one of your ancestors back to Adam, face up to the fact that creationism is a myth.

View attachment 240324

Wow, dude, it is so totally convincing when, regardless of what anyone writes, you just copy-paste the same bogus nonsense as if it means something.

Do you know how phylogenies are constructed? NO.

Do you understand fossilization? NO.

Do you understand basic genetics and how genes affect development and morphology? Clearly NO.

Why do you persist in embarrassing yourself with these silly assertions/demands that only show how out of your depth you are?

 

[tas8831]

Y
You know, in science it is called evidence..

Is this your way of admitting that your creation beliefs are not scientific? Because you have never, as far as I can see, present evidence FOR creation.

And surely in your pretend education you learned at some point some basics of logic and logical fallacies, like the false dichotomy?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, it's your not wanting to learn which means you do not want to learn.

For example, I repeatedly linked you free courses on evolution. Do you have any interest in them?

Do they prove evolution is a fact?

You know, you seem to forget I have listened/"learned" several times here, but once you fail miserably to convince so many times, one does tend to lose interest in anything/your "courses". It's just fallen apart each time someone claims to have proof. So, no, guess I don't....give me one good reason why I should have interest in reading another bunch of claims that assume so much.

 

[inquiring mind]

It is impossible because...maybe this is the dilemma. People have to be familiar with science to understand. For example, if I asked you where the nearest Devonian outcrop of rock is, from your location, would you be able to answer? If not, then that could be an issue, because you wouldnt be able to understand the fossil succession if you werent first familiar with the geologic succession and where rocks are.

If you are able to answer the question, then we would be able to discuss where else on the planet, devonian rocks are exposed, and where underground theyre located as well. These things are necessary in understanding how the prediction was made.

@inquiring mind just checking in.
Did you happen to figure out where the nearest devonian outcrop of rock is from your location? And beyond that, did you happen to see all the non-devonian rock around it?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but from what I've read, rocks don’t accurately date anything because the earth has been so dynamic. Heck, the age of the earth was even estimated by “assuming” it was formed at the same time as everything else in the solar system. If you’re groping for 100% proof of predictability, you’re not going to find it, unless you’re lucky enough to find an area where everything is still in its original state. Anything else would have to have some measure of luck to it, I'd think.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What a twist in words.

You have zero proof in the fossil record that shows evolution happened.

Zero.

Again, as an example, show me fossil by fossil those inbetween any two of the creatures on the illustration below to show one turned into the other - no conjecture needed..

But to date you have showed no (zero) fossils between the illustrated below. That means the classification system presented is fabricated. It was linked by conjecture.

Without fossils between them face up that one on such illustration never evolved into the other on the illustration and take the classification system link away from them, there is no true link of evolution between them.

View attachment 240324

Hope someone answers to your comment because I don't see a thing there that links one to the other...just out and out assumption, and a pitiful assumption at that.

I could shove a baseball bat in between some of those records and they'd make it fit.

Basilbalbatdae.

 

[Aman777]

Without the bones of every one of your ancestors back to Adam, face up to the fact that creationism is a myth.

False, since Adam never took a single step on the present Earth. Your Scriptural knowledge is in need of updating. The Scoffers of the last days don't believe what God told us about the flood. Caught in the snare of false assumptions is today's Darwinist.

 

[Job 33:6]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but from what I've read, rocks don’t accurately date anything because the earth has been so dynamic. Heck, the age of the earth was even estimated by “assuming” it was formed at the same time as everything else in the solar system. If you’re groping for 100% proof of predictability, you’re not going to find it, unless you’re lucky enough to find an area where everything is still in its original state. Anything else would have to have some measure of luck to it, I'd think.

Could you at least try to answer my question, rather than taking some cop out response that says nothing to the subject matter?

It sounds like you have no idea what I'm even talking about when I ask you if you're able to find out where the nearest devonian outcrop is. Like I'm speaking in an alien language or something. And you aren't even making any effort to actually consider what I am saying.

Why bother challenging scientists if you won't even give any time to understand what it is you're attempting to challenge?

Do you know what I am asking from you? Do you know what devonian rock is?

Even if you didn't believe it existed, you should still have an understanding of what it is. Otherwise there is no way you could ever really know anything about paleontology or evolution. If you're held up on really simple questions such as, where's the closest devonian outcrop.

 

[inquiring mind]

Could you at least try to answer my question, rather than taking some cop out response that says nothing to the subject matter?

It sounds like you have no idea what I'm even talking about when I ask you if you're able to find out where the nearest devonian outcrop is. Like I'm speaking in an alien language or something. And you aren't even making any effort to actually consider what I am saying.

Why bother challenging scientists if you won't even give any time to understand what it is you're attempting to challenge?

Do you know what I am asking from you? Do you know what devonian rock is?

Even if you didn't believe it existed, you should still have an understanding of what it is. Otherwise there is no way you could ever really know anything about paleontology or evolution. If you're held up on really simple questions such as, where's the closest devonian outcrop.

You're getting at something other than the questions you ask; just ask instead of convoluting the subject (here predictability) and acting as though no one understands you when they answer your hash... then moving on to another question to further confuse the topic. It's not that complicated, just make your point instead of asking another test question.

 

[Job 33:6]

You're getting at something other than the questions you ask; just ask instead of convoluting the subject (here predictability) and acting as though no one understands you when they answer your hash... then moving on to another question to further confuse the topic. It's not that complicated, just make your point instead of asking another test question.

I'm still on the same subject . In order to understand the prediction, you have to understand fundamental concepts. Such as...what is devonian strata? And where is it? If you don't know these things, then you will never understand why how the prediction was made in which tiktaalik was discovered within said devonian strata.

So I ask again, can you identify devonian strata near you? If not, then u won't be able to understand paleontology nor could you understand the theory of evolution.

It's ok to say that you don't know. It would explain why you don't understand the prediction.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm still on the same subject . In order to understand the prediction, you have to understand fundamental concepts. Such as...what is devonian strata? And where is it? If you don't know these things, then you will never understand why how the prediction was made in which tiktaalik was discovered within said devonian strata.

So I ask again, can you identify devonian strata near you? If not, then u won't be able to understand paleontology nor could you understand the theory of evolution.

It's ok to say that you don't know. It would explain why you don't understand the prediction.

You’re getting better… at least you mentioned “prediction” in this post. I can cut & paste all the definitions you request, but I want you to read my previous statement again, real slow this time, and tell me why it’s a cop out that doesn’t address the subject matter? In fact, my answer stumped you didn’t it? And you had to answer with another question, while you have not even answered the first question I’ve asked you, and I even had to bring the actual subject of predictability back to your attention. You of all people here should know that predictions, especially based on rock locations, during the geological age with the most dynamics, would have to be more conjecture and hit and miss at best. And that’s why I don’t care the least about where Devonian outcrops are and it doesn’t have a thing to do with affecting my understanding the theory of evolution. As we have pointed out to you a hundred times already, it’s all based on conjecture an speculation… occasionally you get lucky, but quit trying to ride that horse this whole race. Start answering some questions and stop asking so many, you’re giving me a headache.

 

[Job 33:6]

You’re getting better… at least you mentioned “prediction” in this post. I can cut & paste all the definitions you request, but I want you to read my previous statement again, real slow this time, and tell me why it’s a cop out that doesn’t address the subject matter? In fact, my answer stumped you didn’t it? And you had to answer with another question, while you have not even answered the first question I’ve asked you, and I even had to bring the actual subject of predictability back to your attention. You of all people here should know that predictions, especially based on rock locations, during the geological age with the most dynamics, would have to be more conjecture and hit and miss at best. And that’s why I don’t care the least about where Devonian outcrops are and it doesn’t have a thing to do with affecting my understanding the theory of evolution. As we have pointed out to you a hundred times already, it’s all based on conjecture an speculation… occasionally you get lucky, but quit trying to ride that horse this whole race. Start answering some questions and stop asking so many, you’re giving me a headache.

It's a cop.out because you're denying the reality that someone needs to know fundamental geology before they can understand how the prediction was made. I sought out an answer to see if you understand the fundamentals and you said I was confusing the subject.

If tiktaalik was predicted to be found in devonian strata, then surely someone has to at least be aware of what or where devonian strata is, in order to understand how or why tiktaalik was predicted and found to be within it.

This is just common sense.

 

[inquiring mind]

It's a cop.out because you're denying the reality that someone needs to know fundamental geology before they can understand how the prediction was made. I sought out an answer to see if you understand the fundamentals and you said I was confusing the subject.

If tiktaalik was predicted to be found in devonian strata, then surely someone has to at least be aware of what or where devonian strata is, in order to understand how or why tiktaalik was predicted and found to be within it.

This is just common sense.

Well, I'm sorry, it's not common sense to think that at a time when the world was literally being torn apart and recycled... you could be anywhere close to having 100% predictability about anything during that time really. You were given a solid, concise answer (which I still think stumped you) and you still haven't answered one question I've asked (even conversational questions). You only go off into your deflections, usually containing more speculation, and how I (and anyone else) wouldn't understand, and then confuse the issue even more by asking further questions. That's why everyone is questioning what you present as actual proof, when it appears that all you can do is give tests, and no real usable information. This is not a college course; it's discussion and debate of statements and claims.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, I'm sorry, it's not common sense to think that at a time when the world was literally being torn apart and recycled... you could be anywhere close to having 100% predictability about anything during that time really. You were given a solid, concise answer (which I still think stumped you) and you still haven't answered one question I've asked (even conversational questions). You only go off into your deflections, usually containing more speculation, and how I (and anyone else) wouldn't understand, and then confuse the issue even more by asking questions. That's why everyone is questioning what you present as actual proof, when it appears that all you can do is give tests, and no real usable information. This is not a college course; it's discussion and debate of statements and claims.

You didn't actually give a response though for why you can't find devonian strata.

What exactly is your response to this?

 

[Job 33:6]

"from what I've read, rocks don’t accurately date anything because the earth has been so dynamic."

It this your response @inquiring mind for why you can't find devonian strata?