Evolution's Brick Wall

[DogmaHunter]

I see why you guys never get tired in your tit-for-tat argumentative style. When one of you gets bested, you just hand the ball off to one of the many others who have went ‘all in’ on the idea of macro evolution before they understood that it wasn’t actually proven.

For crying out loud....

For the billionth time: no scientific theory is ever considered proven, only ever supported.

That's just how science works. No theory is ever considered proven.

Now after seeing that it just can’t be put over the goal line, you’re always scrambling for descriptive terms like ‘well supported, evidence of, demonstrated, and superfluous,’

I know of nobody on this side of the fence in this thread who has ever stated that scientific theories are "proven".

and you have no choice but to all-out defend your self-proclaimed superior intellect in the matter by challenging the aptitude and integrity of those who have seen all along what a ridiculous idea macro evolution is.

Yeah, yeah....



Now, how about addressing the question:
How is it possible that scientists are able to accuratly predict where to find what kind of fossil, if they base this prediction on a false model of reality?

In context of (macro)evolutionary history, you should be able to find fish/tetrapod "hybrids" near the end of the devonian.

In context of a creationist history, there is absolutely NO REASON AT ALL to find such fossils in that specific rock in those specific location.

So how do you explain this?
How come they were able to predict where to find what?

 

[Ophiolite]

I see why you guys never get tired in your tit-for-tat argumentative style. When one of you gets bested, you just hand the ball off to one of the many others who have went ‘all in’ on the idea of macro evolution before they understood that it wasn’t actually proven.

I truly hope this is my last post to you. This is doing my heart arythmia and blood pressure no good at all.

I know you have been told multiple times that science does not prove anything, yet here you are bandying around the proof word yet again. Let me spell it out for you and go ahead and report me for it if it makes you feel better. I've had it up to here with you.

Either you keep bringing up demands for and reference to proof because you are too stupid to understand what we are telling you, or you keep bringing it up because you are being deliberately dishonest. I truly hope it is the former, since I can tolerate honest fools, but a dishonest charlatan is another matter.

You bring your religion and yourself in disrepute by such behaviour.

Adios!

 

[inquiring mind]

Next...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Next...

 

[VirOptimus]

Next...

Your tagline is truly ironic.

 

[pitabread]

Another sports metaphor. I don't think you know how science works. It's not a contest, just a means of acquiring and categorizing knowledge. The object is not to "win" but to learn.

It seems to be a re-occurring theme that understanding = having their minds changed.

I wonder if this is because they are equating evolution with a belief system and therefore to understand it requires first accepting it (this seems to be the approach creationists use with the Bible). Whereas when it comes to science, it's just a body of knowledge. Learning it and understanding it doesn't require accepting it.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think these young earthers are just...they dont rely on things like scientific or philosophic truths, to establish their world view. They dont really use principals of logic, like superposition, or cross cutting relations or the law of inclusions, to understand things like the fossil succession.

They've already selected a world view, and accept such without question, without using logic to develop that world view. And so, when we bring logic to the table, to them it is irrelevant because theyve never used logic in life, to begin with.

It is true that the floor beneath my feet must have existed before i could exist in a position in which i am standing on it. Else I would be floating in space or not on the floor at all.

This is a simple, logical truth, by which the fossil succession (through the geologic succession) is understood. Oldest rocks on the bottom (and oldest fossils on the bottom). But young earthers, dont believe such a succession exists despite the fact that the succession stands firmly upon basic logic. They instead suggest things like "the rock succession is obliterated and cannot be understood".

But if it were true that the rock succession were obliterated, and we couldnt figure out where different layers were, then the oil and gas industry which relies on knowing where certain oil and gas rich strata are, would not exist.

 

[inquiring mind]

You guys need to take it easy, or someone will have a Tic Tac attack.

 

[inquiring mind]

Your tagline is truly ironic.

So is yours.

 

[Heissonear]

@ KomatiiteBIF
@ Jimmy D
Well, I spent an hour of my life watching his presupposed macro evolutionary model being sold. Yes, he’s a biology expert who can find Devonian rock; yes, he found a very strange fish (I would venture to guess there were a lot of strange creatures 375 million years ago). And, due to his expertise he can articulate quite a fill-in the gaps picture of his proposed fish to tetrapod transition, even if it’s just with a fish that can do push-ups.

I bet there has been more digging on that Arctic Island in the last ten years than there was in the California gold rush. Where’s all the ‘a little more’ and ‘a little less’ transitioned Tic Tacs if that is such fertile ground for evidence? The gigantic jump from a fish doing push-ups to one that can walk, to me anyway, is still ridiculous. As I said, he just presupposes macro evolution and makes everything fit that model. Right off the bat in his introduction, it was said that because his find had similar features to land animals it represents the transition from fish to land animals... so much for open-mindedness.

You guys are right, I don’t need to be in this argument, but I don’t think you do either. I’ve never claimed to be an authority, what’s really embarrassing is that you’ve hung your hat on another flash-in-the-pan find that has gone nowhere as far as proving macro evolution. Or maybe you're all satisfied with just collecting, what you call, evidence. That presentation is almost ten years old.

And all that Sunbin furnished was based on conjecture. Like you said evolution being sold.

Macro-assemblages in story form is the best they can offer.

These guys on CF do not know when to quit or admit. The are hooked evolutionists. Now it is about 30 of them against you, one. And this is all they will post. Trying to convert you with lack of fossil-based evidence. It is fossils + conjecture= evolution, if they would be honest.

But they have grouped against you, and as a group think they have won. But the fossil record shows evolution never happened.

They keep up their faith, and overpromote it.

But good seed in good soil endures persecution .......

 

[Heissonear]

You're still just criticising the science without addressing how the prediction was made.

As I've said before and I'll say again. It's not just a fish, it has both tetrapod and fish traits. And it isn't a purely random find either. If the fossil succession were random, we would be finding reptiles before amphibians and birds before reptiles and mammals before reptiles and flowering plants before seeded plants and shelled organisms before soft bodied organisms and vertebrates before invertebrates etc.

It's not random at all, it's exactly what evolution predicts it should be and it identically matches patters found in our DNA. Which all only makes sense if macro evolution is true.

If you have nothing more to contribute, then yes, you probably shouldn't be in this conversation.

If you would like, we can also talk about other transitional fossils and we can discuss why they too support macro evolution just as the prediction of tiktaalik does.

When I finally realized all was based on conjecture, had a dynamic baptism by God's Holy Spirit, I called guys like you around me at that time "followers of men". And their tenets.

Look again at your last 20 posts. Yes Grace needs to turn you too.

 

[VirOptimus]

So is yours.

No, its really not. Not that I think you understand it.

 

[Job 33:6]

And all that Sunbin furnished was based on conjecture. Like you said evolution being sold.

Macro-assemblages in story form is the best they can offer.

These guys on CF do not know when to quit or admit. The are hooked evolutionists. Now it is about 30 of them against you, one. And this is all they will post. Trying to convert you with lack of fossil-based evidence. It is fossils + conjecture= evolution, if they would be honest.

But they have grouped against you, and as a group think they have won. But the fossil record shows evolution never happened.

They keep up their faith, and overpromote it.

But good seed in good soil endures persecution .......

And still no explanation for how the prediction was made. Until you have an explanation, aside from the fossil succession being a product of the theory of evolution, there is nothing more to say.

 

[pitabread]

But the fossil record shows evolution never happened.

Except for all the parts where it does. Which you ignore.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, its really not. Not that I think you understand it.

What?... your tagline is the Mona Lisa of ironic statements.

 

[pitabread]

I think these young earthers are just...they dont rely on things like scientific or philosophic truths, to establish their world view.

Creationists in general seem to reject the idea of an objective universe. And without an objective universe, out goes science.

 

[inquiring mind]

And still no explanation for how the prediction was made. Until you have an explanation, aside from the fossil succession being a product of the theory of evolution, there is nothing more to say.

He knew the time frame that he wanted to explore.

He found three areas in a geology textbook that were made up of primarily 375 million year old Devonian outcrops.

He went to one of them and found a 375 million year old strange creature, plugged it in his macro evolution model, did TV shows and sold books.

Doesn’t that pretty much sum it up?

 

[pitabread]

He went to one of them and found a 375 million year old strange creature

A creature which happened to fit the fish -> tetrapod transition, which is what would be expected of evolution.

Now, if he'd found a modern elephant or horse or bird that would have been something expected of creationism.

 

[Speedwell]

He knew the time frame that he wanted to explore.

He found three areas in a geology textbook that were made up of primarily 375 million year old Devonian outcrops.

He went to one of them and found a 375 million year old strange creature, plugged it in his macro evolution model, did TV shows and sold books.

Doesn’t that pretty much sum it up?

The interesting thing is, it confirmed the predictions made by the model. If he'd found something else it wouldn't have. Science in action.

 

[Job 33:6]

He knew the time frame that he wanted to explore.

He found three areas in a geology textbook that were made up of primarily 375 million year old Devonian outcrops.

He went to one of them and found a 375 million year old strange creature, plugged it in his macro evolution model, did TV shows and sold books.

Doesn’t that pretty much sum it up?

Partially.

Genetically, we share DNA similarities and differences predominantly with other old world great apes, like chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans etc. Beyond that, we are genetically, more similar to new world monkeys, like lemurs and marmosets. Next we are more similar to other mammals, such as wolves, lions, Horses, whales and really any mammal you can think of. Next in distance of phylogeny are reptiles. Beyond that, next in line in genetic relatedness are amphibians, including tetrapods, and beyond that in genetic similarity and difference, are fish.

With this in mind, evolution predicts that if fish evolved to amphibian, and on to reptile, then mammal then something similar to a new world monkey then onto an old world ape...

Then this same order must also exist in the fossil record from older rocks, to young rocks. And any contradiction to this, such as mammals being present before reptiles, or old amphibians appearing after reptiles or fish being found after any of the above, would be a stark contradiction to the theory. And yes, obviously fish are alive today, but we are referring to the first appearance of each of these species in the fossil record.

With that in mind, then the age of the rock was selected. The age being younger than a fish dominated early devonian, but older than a tetrapod dominated late devonian.

And therein in the mid devonian was tiktaalik, with both fish and tetrapod traits, while the strata it was found within is between older strata dominated by fish and younger strata dominated by tetrapods.

And this same order: Fish >> Amphibian>>Reptile>>bird/mammal that is present in our DNA, exists throughout the fossil succession. This is what was used to make the prediction of tiktaaliks location.

So the question remains of if evolution were not true, how is it that tiktaalik was discovered? And beyond that, really one could ask why the fossil succession matches our DNA succession to begin with, if not due to evolution.