Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Try this:when would we have split off from monkeys? We know that old and new world monkeys split around 40 million years ago.
sorry no longer taking uhuh as a response, just saying, "that doesn't count." without understanding the evolution of the animals or showing why it's wrong will no longer be allowed. I'm not going to keep repeating myself so you can wave it away. Show why it's wrong.
Again, it's not the absolute number of fossils which have been found, it's whether any that are found contradict the theory.
Something like twenty million years ago.
How many "should" there be?
You know that fossilization is a fairly rare occurrence and that not all fossils have been found. The important thing is that none found so far contradict the theory.
No, but for a provisional explanation--which is what the theory of evolution is, there really is no minimum number. The only really important thing is that none of the fossils found, however few they are, contradict the theory. You said yourself, earlier, that science s about drawing conclusions from physical evidence. It can only draw conclusions from what physical evidence is actually there, whether much or little..Seriously? You are really saying if I can't give an exact number, then I'm wrong?
We all see your point, and would like to have tons of fossils showing complete evolutionary progression for all of the creatures and indeed, scientists are searching for them. But in the meantime, science has to draw its conclusions from what evidence is actually in hand, and so far none of it contradicts the theory so evolution will remain the accepted provisional explanation for the immediate future.Think "proportionality".
I think you all see my point perfectly, so I'll just watch you all dance around it til an actual good point comes up or everyone just leaves.
LOL
Repeat what? What did I wave away? Did you have a question?
Why did you not answer my questions? Again, very bad sign when we skip direct questions
Fact is, it's so obvious that fly's in the face of evolution, and since you cannot refute it you and others are scared to touch it, hence nothing but excuses and contrariness.
I''m trying to prove my reasoning with the generations in between question but since I assume you all know how it will end, the very fair question will be avoided or stalled as long as possible.
I already gave you what you wanted and more go re-read the previous posts.
And what questions, I just see you going UHUH to the evidence we have provided. You don't get to just say, "feathered dinosaurs arn't evidence." show your work for why they arn't evidence, and not just some hand waving dismisal.
And because there are some dinosaurs that have feathers, how does that help make the point of evolution?
How is finding what you feel is "stronger evidence" such a gigantic breakthrough?
We all see your point, and would like to have tons of fossils showing complete evolutionary progression for all of the creatures and indeed, scientists are searching for them. But in the meantime, science has to draw its conclusions from what evidence is actually in hand, and so far none of it contradicts the theory so evolution will remain the accepted provisional explanation for the immediate future.
It can only draw conclusions from what physical evidence is actually there, whether much or little..
How does one measure the probability of something that has only occurred once that we know of?
What questions? I know of no better way to put it than to say they are the comments followed by a question mark.
You have me quoted as stating "feathered dinosaurs arn't evidence."? Can you please show me where I said that?
Show what work? Show yours and answer the questions I might have. I'm trying to question you about it, but you won't answer. How can I possibly say it's not evidence when I can't get it out of you how that is evidence of evolution in the first place? Why can't you simply answer the questions so we can have an orderly debate, instead of claiming I said things I did not way, and demanding things from me when I'm doing my best to give you those things but can't possibly if you won't work with me?
I asked you point blank:
And on your prediction response and so I can find how you feel it's evidence of evolution, I asked you:
IOW, how is that "funny how" or strange? Is that what you are referring to as evidence of evolution? If so, then answer my return questions on it so I can understand. When you don't do that and so often, it makes me feel you have no good answer, understand?
You haven't found them because they aren't there. If evolution was a fact, they would be there and you would find them. If thousands of those exist in between and you found the one here, and then another from many years following, just the odds say you would find not only a few but many in between. How have you found the ones on each end but none in between when they are much more numerous? You haven't found them because they are not there, and they are not there because evolution is not a fact. This is a huge problem.
You absolutely can draw conclusion on the fact they aren't there when it only makes sense they should be.
Take 100 years worth of ford cars and you found the first and the last made, so if you found those, it would only makes sense we can go out and find plenty of the inbetweens. If you cannot find them, then they are not there and something is wrong. And in the case of evolution the conclusion is, we never had evidence of evolution to begin with because like here people fell into denial, so that fact was conveniently ignored.
Hey hey brother
Well, first I would investigate this isolated incident. If something happened only once how do I know it happened at all or how can i trust that the official explanation is correct?
I wanted to provide this link to speedwell (at his request) but I'm blocked for some reason. It's to do with fruit fly research that attempted to make them evolve.I found the party I'm looking for.
Love your work @Aussie Pete and @Kenny'sID, don't back down. They haven't got anything other than a misplaced faith.
Hey brother @Speedwell, hey hey to Mr @FrumiousBandersnatch and hey hey to my new best friend @Ophiolite.
I'm watching hehe
It is not just the first and the last. Sometimes there are whole long strings of closely related fossils showing evolutionary development.You haven't found them because they aren't there. If evolution was a fact, they would be there and you would find them. If thousands of those exist in between and you found the one here, and then another from many years following, just the odds say you would find not only a few but many in between. How have you found the ones on each end but none in between when they are much more numerous? You haven't found them because they are not there, and they are not there because evolution is not a fact. This is a huge problem.
You absolutely can draw conclusion on the fact they aren't there when it only makes sense they should be.
Take 100 years worth of ford cars and you found the first and the last made, so if you found those, it would only makes sense we can go out and find plenty of the inbetweens. If you cannot find them, then they are not there and something is wrong. And in the case of evolution the conclusion is, we never had evidence of evolution to begin with because like here people fell into denial, so that fact was conveniently ignored.
No thanks. I'm not interested in how ICR misrepresents that research.I wanted to provide this link to speedwell (at his request) but I'm blocked for some reason. It's to do with fruit fly research that attempted to make them evolve.
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations
The 600 refers to generations of fruit flies.
Huh.
So according to creationism it sounds like animal remains should readily be preserved. Right?
Let's test this then.
I live next to a forest (~500 acres) that is full of wildlife. I'm conservatively estimating 10 animals per acre. This is probably low-balling it just given the observed animals (especially all the rodents and birds), but this will do for an estimation.
That means a population size of ~5000 animals in this forest.
The forest in question has existed for at least 200 years based on historical records in the city I live, but likely far longer. But I'll use 200 years to again low-ball things.
Assuming a mean generation time of ~2 years for animals (again, probably low-balling since most of the animals are rodents with shorter generation time), this means that over 200 years and with a mean population size of 5000, we can expect that there have been approximately a half-a-million animals that have lived in this forest over the past 200 years. (5000 x 200 / 2 = 500,000)
That puts the total number of animal remains at 1000 per acre or about 1 in every 5 square yards.
Here's the funny thing: I almost never find animal remains in that forest. I've explored it over the many years and animal remains are extremely difficult to find. In fact one year, I found a pair of carcasses but in the following yet the following years I returned to the same spot and the carcasses had vanished. How weird is that!
And this is using deliberate low-balling of numbers favoring creationism. If this forest has existed for 1000 years then I would expect even more animal remains. One every square yard!
So according to creationism I should have a forest littered with animal bones and yet I don't. I wonder what I can conclude about creationism?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?