Fossil Hominids

[fdavis]

Actually, we can test hypotheses about how we were created. Evolution predicts fossil intermediates in the sedimentary record. Special creation predicts the sudden appearance of man with no fossil intermediates. The fossil record contains an excellent series of fossil intermediates between humans and other apes. Therefore, the predictions of evolution are supported and special creation is falsified.

You don't seem to understand how the scientific method works. It isn't evolutionary history itself that must be repeatable, but the tests used to infer that history. Tests include things like cladistic, developmental, biostratigraphic, and biogeographic analyses. These must be observable and repeatable.

Actually, it seems to be someone else who doesn't understand the scientific method - or at least when it can and cannot be used. You are beginning with Naturalistic assumptions to try and make your point. You are assuming intermediates, but you cannot demonstrate that what you are talking about are truly intermediate forms. Why could they not each one be separate special creations by God? (Creationist assumptions) All you have done is arrange evidence (based, again, on Naturalistic presuppositions). You have not demonstrated causality. And nothing about dealing with prehistoric history is observable or repeatable.

When you start in the wrong place you end up in the wrong place.

 

[fdavis]

The only distinction is one of time. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a long period of time. Here's a good analogy I found recently:

That is what you say. But show me the science. Macro evolution cannot be demonstrated scientifically. It is an extrapolation with no empirical basis.

Your analogy is interesting, but flawed. It assumes that the changes in color are the same as biological changes. It simply is not true.

 

[Mallon]

Actually, it seems to be someone else who doesn't understand the scientific method - or at least when it can and cannot be used. You are beginning with Naturalistic assumptions to try and make your point.

Is that not the same assumption that ALL science uses??? How many scientific theories do you know of that invoke magic?

You are assuming intermediates, but you cannot demonstrate that what you are talking about are truly intermediate forms. Why could they not each one be separate special creations by God?

I suppose God could have miraculously poofed intermediate-looking forms into existence. But that isn't the most parsimonious interpretation of the data (parsimony being another foundational tenet of science). Parsimony states that if fossils look intermediate, they probably ARE intermediate. Deriving ad hoc hypotheses to support what is otherwise a falsified hypotheses is NOT parsimonious.

BTW, are you a scientist?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I think I understand this a little bit better now (I've looked up information off of this website, and I feel comfortable with it), so if an admin wants to lock and get rid of this thread, I would be happy with that. Thanks

 

[Mallon]

That is what you say. But show me the science. Macro evolution cannot be demonstrated scientifically. It is an extrapolation with no empirical basis.

Macroevolution is extrapolated based on the nested, hierarchical structure of life (whether you consider morphology or genetics). It is empirically based.

Your analogy is interesting, but flawed. It assumes that the changes in color are the same as biological changes. It simply is not true.

Please explain what you mean by this.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

MOD HAT ON

Thread closed at OP's request

MOD HAT OFF
​