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.
It's just a point I like to make. Too often arguments/discussions get bogged down with specifics concerning genome, DNA, transition fossils, etc. They need to get their head out of the sand and look at the big picture. I have yet to see anyone explain why the fossil record is distributed through out the geologic column as it is without evolution, though sometimes they do invoke to Noah's Flood, which is another problem for them.
I remember reading Glenn Morton's story, and it was very hard for him. ( Why I left Young Earth Creationism ) He still posts to his blog.
The odd thing about Glenn Morton is that he was able to see through misrepresentations of geology, but as far as I know, he still denies climate change in his blog.
I'm a recovering KJO-YEC
I got very poor marks for Grade 12 Biology (in 1982), but am very keen to learn all I can about these lines of evidence for E V O L U T I O N
Please choose "one" and help me understand it?
I known I could search out the answer, but then this wouldn't be a discussion - it'd be a boring old lecture.
So, let's chat.
I'm a recovering KJO-YEC
I got very poor marks for Grade 12 Biology (in 1982), but am very keen to learn all I can about these lines of evidence for E V O L U T I O N
Please choose "one" and help me understand it?
I known I could search out the answer, but then this wouldn't be a discussion - it'd be a boring old lecture.
So, let's chat.
You are missing the point and misrepresenting my argument. The claim is normally thrown about by those who do not wish to provide evidence of their own. In reality, both sides should provide evidence of some sort. Any side that just says, "Unless you can prove (to my satisfaction) that your position is right, I reject it completely."[serious];66851379 said:I would accept that postulate. Math is based on a well defined set of postulates that I accept. That one starts getting a little fuzzy. As a general rule, I accept the postulate, but at high energy or small scales, we can only really describe things as probabilities. What caused a vase to fall works, what caused a thorium atom to spontaneously decay at a given moment, not so much.
No, he stated a postulate, as I've already pointed out.
I'll ask again:
Is it more productive to debate with evidence or without?
I'm glad you brought this up because someone closed the "Evolution According to Zosimus" thread (completely without consulting me, of course... the nerve of some people...)That's all folks!
Let me see whether I understand your logic.Put this one in your pipe ans smoke it. If evolution were false, we would find fossils of a flora and fauna in all layers of geologic strata. The fact is we don't. That is not an assertion nor an assumption, rather an observed verifiable fact.
RickG said:The Earth is old. I really cannot fathom how much you have to torture you mind not to get that.
The reality is though, the torture they would endure to admit the earth is old, is even greater.
Are you aware that after mount st Helens blew her top that layers of mud formed near by with similar strata of evolutionists evidence. And in these newly formed strata there are trees, standing upright, roots down and it all happened in one event. Similar to a world wide catastorfic event that ended with the earth flooded. Also, at Mt. St. Helens, there was a canyon formed not unlike the grand canyon but in smaller proportions.
I could give you the webpage of evidence but it's a "biased" source.
Jack, both sides are biased, one biased with factual evidence and one biased with misrepresentations of that evidence. Let's discuss one of the bias's.
1st - Mount St. Helens has nothing to do with evolution.
2nd - The mud debris with both upright, angled and flat debris was a localized event and in no way related to anything occurring on a global scale.
3rd - The canyon formed by the Mount St. Helens "Lahar" does not resemble the Grand Canyon in the slightest. Furthermore, the small said canyon grew to a larger size because it was unconsolidated earth that was washed away, not solid rock.
The Mount St. Helen's eruption did NOT produce anything like the Grand Canyon, yet creationists have repeatedly presented it as an example of how a structure like the Grand Canyon can form very quickly from a catastrophic event.
If all parties agree that arguments require evidence, then it sounds a lot like arguments made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.You are missing the point and misrepresenting my argument. The claim is normally thrown about by those who do not wish to provide evidence of their own. In reality, both sides should provide evidence of some sort.
I would agree that neither side should do that, but that isn't what the concept forwards. If we wanted to put a corollary in for insufficient evidence, I'd imagine it would read something like, "That which can be asserted with weak evidence can be rejected with stronger evidence"Any side that just says, "Unless you can prove (to my satisfaction) that your position is right, I reject it completely."
So I never said that arguments should proceed without evidence. Rather it is those who employ Hawkins' Razor who claim that they can dispense with evidence.
We could attempt to cross breed them. Since species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, establishing that they can or can't interbreed would be a pretty definitive test of whether they are the same speciesI'm glad you brought this up because someone closed the "Evolution According to Zosimus" thread (completely without consulting me, of course... the nerve of some people...)
At any rate, I'll say it again.
Speciation is not known to occur.
Against this some people will say, "No, we've observed speciation."
Have you? How can you know that animal X is a different species from animal Y?
I just gave you a test.There is no reliable, objective test that can be administered to determine whether the two animals belong to different species. Accordingly, you cannot say that the two animals are of different species.
Unless some such test can be devised, such as the test specified above. Then we could look at examples of speciation and test them.Accordingly, any claim that speciation has occurred should be met with agnostic skepticism.
It's actually been extensively observed in plants, both in the wild and through breeding. I can give you lists on lists of plant examples of speciation. Bacteria, due to being asexual, have a different meaning of species, so we'll set them aside.
So let's move on to animals. We've got bunches of examples there as well. Several fruit fly experiments, house flies, parasitic worms, and lots of others.
But let's shift the goal posts some. Let's say that plants don't count, and lab results don't count, and even demand a vertebrate example. Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago.
More shifting! show us a land animal! Anolis lizards in the Caribbean.
No! a mammal! Faeroe Island house mouse has us covered. They were introduced to the island about 250 years ago and have since become a separate species.
There are lots more examples likely to arise in the future. Want a bigger animal? The domesticated silver fox is being bred and if it continues to be strictly reproductively isolated, will eventually lose the ability to reproduce with it's ancestral population. We also have bunches of ring species that are just a die off of connecting populations away from new species status.
IT IS NOT MADE OF ROCK.I have pictures from when I WAS THERE.
Yes it did do as they say.
But lets check it today. This picture is the spot I stood, but the
erosion has removed the dramatic trench that used to be there.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mt+St+Helens,+Gifford+Pinchot+National+Forest,+Washington+98616/@46.216243,-122.1870641,3a,75y/data=!3m5!1e2!3m3!1s-Yd-oBlg1DDU%2FTBVK9xvnCzI%2FAAAAAAAADuk%2FQCFhA2p0uu8!2e4!3e15!4m2!3m1!1s0x54969956568a2691:0x69ddb4f4b6cf94c7!5m1!1e4
But you can still see some of what was like a scale model of the grand canyon below.
IT IS NOT MADE OF ROCK.
IT IS MADE OF MUD.
The Grand Canyon is made of Sandstone, Limestone and Shale.
They are not anywhere near the same and more importantly the features
of the canyon cannot be created by the same processes as formed the "Lahar" at St. Helen's.
They were formed
in mud
just as they claim:
"These deposits include fine pumice ash laminae and beds from one millimeter thick to greater than one meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes of accumulation. A deposit accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds. "
They were formed
in mud
just as they claim:
"These deposits include fine pumice ash laminae and beds from one millimeter thick to greater than one meter thick, each representing just a few seconds to several minutes of accumulation. A deposit accumulated in less than one day, on June 12, 1980, is 25 feet thick and contains many thin laminae and beds. "
True. It makes one appreciate what a tough journey it must be for those who escape 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?