Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[VirOptimus]

What points? If you are talking about the following quote, there was nothing there to "whoosh" over my head, lol. Assuming I didn't miss one of your posts directed at me personally, and the following is the post that supposedly made your "points" you essentially made a claim, nothing more, and you know better than that.



And best I can tell you have done nothing but make useless claims/short comments that mean virtually nothing. I have to comment again that is so out there to claim something is backed by someone else/the OP is just worthless, and expect anyone to just buy it, just like that. Evolutionists may be that easy, but many of us are not. Wow

Briefly, what would you say to my posting "God is definitely the maker of all things, and the claim is very well backed up in the bible". Well that's basically how your point comes off as evidence. Again, you know better.

On the other hand if you did actually post some real "points" towards me, and not just hear say, then by all means, direct me to them, else I'll just assume you got nothing now, never did, and you actually thought you could convince us by whispering sweet nothings into our ears..

The ToE is more or less settled science. If you want to argue against it its through writing articles for peer-review.

Ill-informed posts on a messageboard with religion in the mix is just pointless and a well, ignorant.

Religion and science doesnt mix.

 

[VirOptimus]

I did read through the article, rather quickly I'll admit. I doubt I'll understand this anymore than I already do.

Here is one important aspect of the article for me:

Typically for any theory to be accepted within most academia there is one simple criterion. The essential criterion is that the theory must be observable and repeatable. The aforementioned criterion is essential to prevent fraud and perpetuate science itself.

Of course evolution cannot be observable or repeated. So the best we can do is attempt to create life...even a one-cell life form and even this cannot be done.

IOW, Einstein had a theory. The theory of relativity.
As far as we can tell right now...his theory was correct. As far as we can tell right now...we still don't know if evolution is correct.

Some fish have no eyes because they live deep in the ocean and do not need too see because it's totally dark there. So how did the fish up on top get eyes?
Did they develop as the fish got closer and closer to the surface? Did they see better and better? HOW LONG did this take considering the complexity of the eye?

I've thought this over very well and have not brought my faith into this. I'm waiting for this to be confirmed....

Am I wrong in saying that evolution has NOT been confirmed?

Evolution is a fact.

The ToE explains how.

You are incredibly wrong and still dont understand what an scientific theory entails.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The ToE is more or less settled science. If you want to argue against it its through writing articles for peer-review.

Ill-informed posts on a messageboard with religion in the mix is just pointless and a well, ignorant.

Religion and science doesnt mix.

Maybe someone else is educated enough to to answer to the OP? Or at the very least stop making baseless claims without even a tad of backing?

 

[Kenny'sID]

That James Tour knows how "life starts".

Thank you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution is a fact.

The ToE explains how.

Could you please pull all that together for us so I can see if the explanation works for me? In all honesty, I would not expect you to educate me, but for the life of me, no one else has been able to do that, and I've never been able to find such a thing...anywhere.

It doesn't have to be your own writing, just something you verify will do the job and please post it here so all can see it. Thanks

 

[GodsGrace101]

Evolution is a fact.

The ToE explains how.

You are incredibly wrong and still dont understand what an scientific theory entails.

We don't know if I'm wrong....this is the best answer I could come to....It seems to me that we're just not sure.


Here's an article from the New York Times..

In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight. He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims. Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.

Not only has the fossil record failed, but findings of modern scientists have made general evolutionary theory even less tenable. In ''Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,'' for example, Michael Denton methodically analyzes a wealth of evidence that challenges this theory. His subjects include the failure of homology (homologous structures not being represented by homologous genes nor embryonic development); the typological nature of microbiology, and problems associated with chance as a directive force, in addition to the lack of a supportive fossil record.

Contrary to popular belief, many people disagree with the theory of general evolution, and the idea that all opponents base their views on religious belief is groundless. Michael Denton is neither a creationist nor an evangelical Christian, and his book is one of several to challenge evolution on scientific terms. Moreover, having religious beliefs does not preclude the ability to reason scientifically. Many great scientists - Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier and Louis Pasteur, to name a few -were devoutly religious.

source: Theory of Evolution Has Never Been Proved

 

[46AND2]

Scientists believed that the universe always existed.

NOW they believe that it did not always exist and that somehow it came into being.

They have a bigger problem now than they did before because NOW they have to explain how one gets all this that we have around us if before there was nothing.

I hope you know that there are some scientists that are now trying to prove that something could come of nothing. Something THEY said was impossible just some years ago.

The skeletons of man from 100,000 years ago may or may not be human. That's another thing we're not sure of.

What is known is that a sudden change took place somewhere along the line and the skeletons changed to what we have today.

All we know for sure is that all mankind came from one ancestor.

Again, please provide evidence that this state of nothing you are talking about ever existed.

And we are sure that the skeletons of man from 100,000 years ago are human, because we've tested their DNA.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Again, please provide evidence that this state of nothing you are talking about ever existed.

And we are sure that the skeletons of man from 100,000 years ago are human, because we've tested their DNA.

I don't understand why I have to provide evidence.
Could YOU post something from a scientific journal that states that skeletons of man from 100,000 years ago were human because of DNA testing? That would be nice to see.

As to the first paragraph...I really don't know what you're talking about.

This is like asking me to prove that water is wet.

Scientists used to believe that the universe always existed....
NOW they don't believe this anymore...NOW they believe in the big bang.

I need to back this up???

And I really would like to see something from a reliable source stating that we were around 100,000 years ago,,,,before the last ice-age.

 

[pitabread]

Contrary to popular belief, many people disagree with the theory of general evolution

"Many" needs to be qualified here. In terms of practicing scientists in relevant fields (e.g. biologists) those who disagree with evolution represent a small minority.

The other thing that needs to be qualified is what the disagreements actually are. Certainly there are areas of the theory of evolution that are continuously debated and revised; no scientific theory is ever complete.

But that doesn't mean the same thing as flat-out rejection of a scientific theory like evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Could you tell me what you think of this link...
it's also in my post no. 114

List of scientists who think that a fresh look at evolution is needed | The Third Way of Evolution

I don't think there is anything controversial about it. Is there something specific you wanted to discuss?

 

[Jimmy D]

We don't know if I'm wrong....this is the best answer I could come to....It seems to me that we're just not sure.


Here's an article from the New York Times..

In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight. He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims. Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day.

Not only has the fossil record failed, but findings of modern scientists have made general evolutionary theory even less tenable. In ''Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,'' for example, Michael Denton methodically analyzes a wealth of evidence that challenges this theory. His subjects include the failure of homology (homologous structures not being represented by homologous genes nor embryonic development); the typological nature of microbiology, and problems associated with chance as a directive force, in addition to the lack of a supportive fossil record.

Contrary to popular belief, many people disagree with the theory of general evolution, and the idea that all opponents base their views on religious belief is groundless. Michael Denton is neither a creationist nor an evangelical Christian, and his book is one of several to challenge evolution on scientific terms. Moreover, having religious beliefs does not preclude the ability to reason scientifically. Many great scientists - Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Georges Cuvier and Louis Pasteur, to name a few -were devoutly religious.

source: Theory of Evolution Has Never Been Proved

An article? Are you sure?

(Hint: it isn’t, it’s a reader’s letter, from whom I don’t know).

 

[GodsGrace101]

"Many" needs to be qualified here. In terms of practicing scientists in relevant fields (e.g. biologists) those who disagree with evolution represent a small minority.

The other thing that needs to be qualified is what the disagreements actually are. Certainly there are areas of the theory of evolution that are continuously debated and revised; no scientific theory is ever complete.

But that doesn't mean the same thing as flat-out rejection of a scientific theory like evolution.

All I'm saying is that nothing is certain.

Here's another article I found....I do keep reading about how we cannot know for sure how we evolved - by that I mean, HOW we came to be in our current state.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Bechly: Lessons from the Ongoing “Rewrite” of Human Origins
David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer
March 21, 2019, 5:43 AM

For Evolution News, paleontologist Günter Bechly has done amazing work in reporting on the ongoing “rewrite” of human origins by his fellow scientists. On a new episode of ID the Future, Bechly talks with host Andrew McDiarmid about the dizzying revisions to what was once thought to be secure knowledge of how humans burst forth from Africa and spread to the rest of the world.

Download the episode or listen to it here.

As Dr. Bechly explains, the traditional “Out of Africa” theory is being abandoned as weakly supported by evidence, in favor of a welter of other hypotheses. Even as these ideas recognize Africa as the “cradle” of humanity, all the rest is veiled by surprises and contradictions emanating from Asia and the Middle East. And that is just the point. Scientific ideas once hailed as uncontested — the broader theory of unguided evolution, for one — can turn out to be far less certain than they were originally thought to be.

Humility and skepticism are the recommended attitudes, permitting ourselves to say, “I don’t know.”

source: https://evolutionnews.org/2019/03/bechly-lesson-from-the-ongoing-rewrite-of-human-origins/
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Genetics and Epigenetics — New Problems for Darwinism

source: https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/genetics-and-epigenetics-new-problems-for-darwinism/

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Looks like interesting articles...
I wish I understood them.
It just seems to me that we're not there yet..as to evolution, I mean.

 

[GodsGrace101]

An article? Are you sure?

(Hint: it isn’t, it’s a reader’s letter, from whom I don’t know).

Apparently I'm not the only person on this good earth that believes as I do....

This is the bottom line:

YOU are the one claiming that evolution is a done-deal.

The onus is on YOU to show me, without doubt, that evolution is accepted as a scientific fact,,,and that this is how we came out of the soup to the state we're in now.

If you cannot do this....then the conversation is over.

Why? Because I can prove to you that it takes between 7 to 9 hours to fly from Milan to New York.
It's a scientifically known fact and can be proven.

Why can YOU not prove the same for me regarding evolution?

Why is there still so much debate about it?

 

[pitabread]

All I'm saying is that nothing is certain.

That's a given for everything in science. Science is about trying to understand our own universe and the quest of that understanding will likely never end.

This is true of all fields in science.

 

[GodsGrace101]

That's a given for everything in science. Science is about trying to understand our own universe and the quest of that understanding will likely never end.

This is true of all fields in science.

Oh my PB,
I'm no scientist, but I'm not dumb either.

Is gravity real?

Before Newton we didn't know about gravity.
So in the year 1400 some folk were discussing this thing which might be called gravity.

But we couldn't say it really existed until after Newton's theory and until it was proven to be correct.

This is all I'm saying. If some scientists STILL do not believe in evolution, then we can't claim it as a fact yet.

Am I wrong?

 

[pitabread]

Is gravity real?

Before Newton we didn't know about gravity.
So in the year 1400 some folk were discussing this thing which might be called gravity.

But we couldn't say it really existed until after Newton's theory and until it was proven to be correct.

Not exactly.

Gravity as a phenomena is observable. Newton's theory of gravity is an attempt to explain how it works. However, Newton's theory is also fundamentally flawed (albeit still useful within certain limitations).

There are more modern theories of gravity and continual investigation into that phenomena. For example, one of the modern challenges in physics is trying to formulate a theory of gravity based around quantum mechanics: Quantum gravity - Wikipedia

The real mind-boggling thing is that nobody as of yet knows what gravity actually *is*.

The scientific research into gravity is not settled. Not by a long shot.

This is all I'm saying. If some scientists STILL do not believe in evolution, then we can't claim it as a fact yet.

Like gravity, evolution is an observable phenomenon (e.g. populations of organisms change over time). In that sense, evolution is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution, much like theories of gravity, are attempts to explain how that phenomenon works. And much like gravity, there is still lot more work to be done.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Not exactly.

Gravity as a phenomena is observable. Newton's theory of gravity is an attempt to explain how it works. However, Newton's theory is also fundamentally flawed (albeit still useful within certain limitations).

There are more modern theories of gravity and continual investigation into that phenomena. For example, one of the modern challenges in physics is trying to formulate a theory of gravity based around quantum mechanics: Quantum gravity - Wikipedia

The real mind-boggling thing is that nobody as of yet knows what gravity actually *is*.

The scientific research into gravity is not settled. Not by a long shot.



Like gravity, evolution is an observable phenomenon (e.g. populations of organisms change over time). In that sense, evolution is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution, much like theories of gravity, are attempts to explain how that phenomenon works. And much like gravity, there is still lot more work to be done.

Yes, I understand what you're saying.
Just one last question:
Are you saying organisms change within their own species or are you saying one species could change into something totally different over a long period of time? We can't really observe gravity and evolution in the same way...I could observe gravity right now if I drop my pen.

Anyway, someone on this thread said that science and religion don't mix. I used to teach the Christian faith to kids and I was always told that they go together well...one tells HOW things happen and one tells WHY they happen. After all...God created gravity too! And all of science that we're just now getting to know. Personally, I see no conflict. Some might due to strange ideas...

Thanks for being so nice and patient with me...

 

[sesquiterpene]

Yes, I understand what you're saying.
Just one last question:
Are you saying organisms change within their own species or are you saying one species could change into something totally different over a long period of time?

There is no species in existence that is totally different from any other species in existence, which is one of the reasons why biologists think evolution is true. I'd suggest that you try to learn some biology, and some evolutionary theory as well. Wikipedia is one place to start.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Apparently I'm not the only person on this good earth that believes as I do....

This is the bottom line:

YOU are the one claiming that evolution is a done-deal.

The onus is on YOU to show me, without doubt, that evolution is accepted as a scientific fact,,,and that this is how we came out of the soup to the state we're in now.

If you cannot do this....then the conversation is over.

Why? Because I can prove to you that it takes between 7 to 9 hours to fly from Milan to New York.
It's a scientifically known fact and can be proven.

Why can YOU not prove the same for me regarding evolution?

Why is there still so much debate about it?

You're fixing to run into the "Science proves nothing" claim.

A debate always good for a laugh, as well as an obvious cop out to make it appear evolution cannot be proven but only because they can't.

 

[VirOptimus]

Could you please pull all that together for us so I can see if the explanation works for me? In all honesty, I would not expect you to educate me, but for the life of me, no one else has been able to do that, and I've never been able to find such a thing...anywhere.

It doesn't have to be your own writing, just something you verify will do the job and please post it here so all can see it. Thanks

Mutations —> evolution.

The toe explsins the mechanics of what will spread and how.