Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of course not!

OK, 'nuff said.

 

[Astrophile]

I know enough about science to know that we did NOT start from NOTHING....


I know enough to know that we cannot go back to before the big bang...

If you know that much, you ought to write a paper presenting your evidence and submit it to Astrophysical Journal. Astronomers and cosmologists all round the world would be fascinated.

I know enough about science to know that our DNA, or the DNA of any other species, did not happen by chance because it's impossible.

It depends what you mean by 'chance'; do you mean that DNA could not come into existence without conscious design, or that DNA could not come into existence if all natural processes were random? Also, once DNA existed, however it came into existence, there was nothing to prevent it from evolving to produce the observed diversity of living things.

You have a universe,,,something had to start it,,,and you do not know what.

Right. I can't explain all UFOs either, but that doesn't mean that any of them are alien spacecraft. The fact that I don't know what started the universe doesn't mean that a god created it, still less that any particular religion is true.

Intelligent design makes much more sense than chemicals coming together in just the right amount and just the right ones to cause humanity (or life of any type).

Same answer; even if this statement is correct, it doesn't mean that there is a personal God or that Christianity or any other specific religion is true. The statement would be consistent with Deism.

As to fossils, yeah...where's the change?
I see animals in each strada, but I don't see the change.

The English word is 'stratum'; is 'strada' the Italian word?

This shows the measured cranial capacity of fossil hominins for the last 3.2 million years, from Australopithecus afarensis to Homo sapiens. Can you still not see the change?

 

[Astrophile]

Our planet is just the right distance from the sun...

Our planet is just the right distance from the sun for life to exist, but the other planets, and most of the planets in other solar systems, are at the wrong distances. Who put them there, and why?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How am I misrepresenting it?

A number of members have corrected statements about science or scientists in posts you've made recently. I've corrected the same error three times myself...

I'm going by what other scientists are saying...

I'm just saying that if THEY don't agree...
why should I?

Because, by your own admission, you're ignorant about it. Your view is equivalent to me saying, "I don't understand religion, but some religious people say Christianity is a religion of devil worship, so clearly it's uncertain whether it's good or evil. I'm just saying - if RELIGIOUS PEOPLE don't agree that it's a religion of good..."

This leaves me free to believe what I understand best as being a possibility.

Of course, you can believe whatever you like; but if you post misleading or mistaken statements about science or scientists, having conceded ignorance of it, people will correct you and not respect you. I think it's disingenuous.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Our planet is just the right distance from the sun for life to exist, but the other planets, and most of the planets in other solar systems, are at the wrong distances. Who put them there, and why?

GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't remember what I said...but here's an example:
I don't understand how any of the following could have happened by chance:

Creationists seem to have trouble concentrating on two things at once. Evolution is guided largely by random variation (that is chance) and natural selection (that is the opposite of chance). Claiming that evolution is change by chance ignores natural selection and is incorrect. If a person has 20 chances at a multiple choice test where only the right answers are saved his odds are almost assured of getting an A. Let's see. Given a test of 100 questions with 4 multiple choice answers each and given 20 guesses on each question, wrong answers can be repeated, what would be the odds of getting one wrong . . . The odds of being wrong on one guess is .75 so the odds of being wrong all twenty times are 0/75^20 or 0.00137. That means the odds of being right on each question after at least 20 questions, remember we stop if we get a right answer and move on, is 0.99683. For a 100 hundred question multiple choice test using this method the odds of getting a perfect paper, not just an A but a perfect paper is 0.996823^100 = 0.728. In other words using this method almost 75% of the time one would get a perfect paper "just by luck". Obviously natural selection added to random variation means that a process is not by luck. When we are dealing with populations in the millions the number of new alleles that come into the population in every generation is in the hundreds of millions. What percentage of positive mutations do we need for evolutionary change when natural selection eliminates negative mutations?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

??
What do you mean,,,it did't?

I mean the biochemical processes described in the video didn't happen by chance.

HOW does the DNA get the information as to how to create what it's supposed to create?

Chemical signals resulting from internal or external changes regulate which genes or groups of genes are active or inactive.

 

[46AND2]

Difficult to speak to someone who puts you down from the get go.

Also, it sounds to me like I know MORE than you do.
And I don't agree with anything you've said.

Everything I've said is consistent with what the consensus of scientists currently promote. You can disagree with me all you want, it just shows, plain as day, that you haven't studied enough of the topics you are arguing.

That isn't putting you down, it's a response to your claim that you know enough science to have made a decision concerning evolution. You make fundamental errors that nullify your arguments from the outset.

We don't believe something came from nothing.

We don't believe DNA happened by chance.

We have told you this repeatedly. So why do you keep inserting it into your arguments? You're arguing against a position that none of us, and no scientist, holds.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's a mystery without God and it's a mystery with God.

Occam's razor can help with that.

I just think it's easier to believe that God created everything...

Believing something because it's easier seems... what's the word - indolent?

It was easier for scientists when they believed the universe had always been here. It's more difficult for them now that they've admitted it was created somehow. We have many theories but nothing conclusive - and this cannot be denied.

Yep, scientists want to find the best explanation, not the easiest - and if they don't have sufficient information, they're prepared to accept the uncertainty until they do have it.

 

[Steve Petersen]

What I'm saying is that it's too complicated to have happened by chance. I just can't believe that everything came about just so,,,,just right,,,,to cause all we see around us.

Our planet is just the right distance from the sun...
DNA has a language...who made up that language?

I've posted different scientists -- mathematicians, chemists, that do believe in some kind of intelligent design, or a fine-tuned universe, but I can't keep posting them.

I think we should wait for more evidence,,,,that's all.

What about the Cambrian explosion?
Is there any explanation for that?
I don't think so....

And ships exist for the sake of barnacles.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

i actually never said that it must be an organ. read again.

I know honesty is something you see as as being optional, but read your own posts.

have you seen an ape (beside human if you consider human as ape) that is able to speak? its more complicated than you think:

Diverse genome study upends understanding of how language evolved

"Language is complicated, and was never going to be explained by a single mutation in modern humans, Fisher adds."

Oh look, you didn't answer my question or do as I asked with an explanation.

You probably think you've responded well to my post, don't you? In reality you've obfuscated and addressed nothing I actually posted.

 

[xianghua]

I know honesty is something you see as as being optional, but read your own posts.

as i said: "new complex trait". it doesnt necessarily mean an organ.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Everything I've said is consistent with what the consensus of scientists currently promote. You can disagree with me all you want, it just shows, plain as day, that you haven't studied enough of the topics you are arguing.

That isn't putting you down, it's a response to your claim that you know enough science to have made a decision concerning evolution. You make fundamental errors that nullify your arguments from the outset.

We don't believe something came from nothing.

We don't believe DNA happened by chance.

We have told you this repeatedly. So why do you keep inserting it into your arguments? You're arguing against a position that none of us, and no scientist, holds.

It IS putting me down...when all along I've been very civil. I've studied enough to know that I don't agree...can I not agree?

You said you don't believe something came from nothing. Is what we see around us something?
Where did it come from?

Until the 60's or 80's science believed the universe always existed. Ooops. NOW they don't and science says it came into being but they don't know how.
Would you say this is SOMETHING from NOTHING?
I THINK SO....

You don't believe the info in DNA happened by chance?

Then how did it happen?

If I'm inserting positions no scientist holds.
Then tell me:

WHAT POSITION DO SCIENTISTS HOLD NOWADAYS?

I see Lawrence Krauss trying to prove now that SOMETHING can come from NOTHING....
What more needs to be said?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Occam's razor can help with that.

Believing something because it's easier seems... what's the word - indolent?

Yep, scientists want to find the best explanation, not the easiest - and if they don't have sufficient information, they're prepared to accept the uncertainty until they do have it.

Funny, you posted Occam's Razor and then went on to tell me that picking the easiest solution is wrong.

God is NOT an easy solution...we also have to ask where GOD got started....

I said it's the easiest solution for ME.
Both Christianity and Science have problems...I don't really understand why the two can't "just get along".
Really.

And have you thought about Pascal's Wager?

 

[GodsGrace101]

as i said: "new complex trait". it doesnt necessarily mean an organ.

Because we don't know the language does not mean we have no brain power at work.

Some on this thread must lean on language because, truth be told....they DO NOT KNOW how life got started.
Which has to happen BEFORE even talking about evolution.

Darwin himself had doubts that he might be wrong and depended on those that came after him to discover if his theory was true.

150 years later and we're still debating it. I mean scientists...I don't mean US here on this thread.

Also, I've asked about the Cambrian Explosion...
No answer so far.....

You might enjoy this video.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Creationists seem to have trouble concentrating on two things at once. Evolution is guided largely by random variation (that is chance) and natural selection (that is the opposite of chance). Claiming that evolution is change by chance ignores natural selection and is incorrect. If a person has 20 chances at a multiple choice test where only the right answers are saved his odds are almost assured of getting an A. Let's see. Given a test of 100 questions with 4 multiple choice answers each and given 20 guesses on each question, wrong answers can be repeated, what would be the odds of getting one wrong . . . The odds of being wrong on one guess is .75 so the odds of being wrong all twenty times are 0/75^20 or 0.00137. That means the odds of being right on each question after at least 20 questions, remember we stop if we get a right answer and move on, is 0.99683. For a 100 hundred question multiple choice test using this method the odds of getting a perfect paper, not just an A but a perfect paper is 0.996823^100 = 0.728. In other words using this method almost 75% of the time one would get a perfect paper "just by luck". Obviously natural selection added to random variation means that a process is not by luck. When we are dealing with populations in the millions the number of new alleles that come into the population in every generation is in the hundreds of millions. What percentage of positive mutations do we need for evolutionary change when natural selection eliminates negative mutations?

It's obvious my statement was no understood.
YOU are talking about evolution.
I was talking about the information in a DNA cell.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

as i said: "new complex trait". it doesnt necessarily mean an organ.

What you actually said was "a new complex trait (such as new organ)".

Do you see how completing the quote makes a HUGE difference? Try being honest once in a while, you may find it refreshing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Funny, you posted Occam's Razor and then went on to tell me that picking the easiest solution is wrong.

No, I didn't - I told you that "scientists want to find the best explanation, not the easiest". This suggests that scientists think the best solution is not necessarily the easiest.

Also, Occam's Razor is about selecting parsimony and simplicity given hypotheses of equal explanatory power; i.e. the fewest assumptions, not the 'easiest' - whatever that means.

...we also have to ask where GOD got started....

Exactly, that's the point. A creator God is a baggage-laden label for our ignorance; it is a superfluous assumption - it has no evidence, no explanatory power, no predictive power, doesn't illuminate, clarify, or unify our understanding of the world, is untestable and unfalsifiable; it's an inexplicable, ineffable, unquestionable back-stop to further enquiry. A god-of-the-gaps for the universe - which also implies a whole new equally inexplicable supernatural ontology.

I've asked several times on these forums how 'God' is a better explanation than 'Magic', and haven't yet had a response.

And yet many Christians claim to know, in considerable detail, what this God wants, commands, thinks, and does - they don't all agree, but when faced with contradictions or difficulties, they reverse tack and invoke GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways); what was clear and certain becomes unknowable and unfathomable...

And have you thought about Pascal's Wager?

Yes. It strikes me that knowingly 'hedging your bets' that way is both insincere and a form of gambling, and has the problem of inconsistent revelations. But I suspect it is a factor for some Christians - the fear of potential loss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's obvious my statement was no understood.
YOU are talking about evolution.
I was talking about the information in a DNA cell.

Define what you mean by information in DNA. This is another false argument that creationists often use. There is no need for an outside source for this concept that you probably cannot define.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because we don't know the language does not mean we have no brain power at work.

Some on this thread must lean on language because, truth be told....they DO NOT KNOW how life got started.
Which has to happen BEFORE even talking about evolution.

Darwin himself had doubts that he might be wrong and depended on those that came after him to discover if his theory was true.

150 years later and we're still debating it. I mean scientists...I don't mean US here on this thread.

Also, I've asked about the Cambrian Explosion...
No answer so far.....

You might enjoy this video.

I am getting that you did get answers about the Cambrian explosion. Getting answers that you did not like is still being answered. But I can give it a shot. And you do not seem to understand that evolution does not rely on any specific course for first life. So that is a failed attempt to move the goalposts on your part.