My Daisy Chain Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Can we take every single piece of physical biological evidence for evolution that is currently on display everywhere, and line them up side-by-side in a way that can account for every single year in history since abiogenesis?

If so, if I just arbitrarily asked what piece of physical biological evidence represents 494,012 B.C., it could be produced?

Or are there more years in existence since abiogenesis, than there are pieces of physical biological evidence representing each individual year?

In other words: missing links that make daisy-chaining impossible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can we take every single piece of physical biological evidence for evolution that is currently on display everywhere, and line them up side-by-side in a way that can account for every single year in history since abiogenesis?

If so, if I just arbitrarily asked what piece of physical biological evidence represents 494,012 B.C., it could be produced?

Or are there more years in existence since abiogenesis, than there are pieces of physical biological evidence representing each individual year?

In other words: missing links that make daisy-chaining impossible?

No, of course we don't have a complete record. Nor do we need one.

Why do you think we need to know the date of every event?

Tell me exactly what date, time to the second, when you were no longer a baby, a toddle, an adolescent. If you can't then we can assume that God made you as an adult and you were never a child by your logic.

 

[RedRover]

In other words: missing links that make daisy-chaining impossible?

Does your friend Daisy know Luka? He is considered to be the Last Universal Common Ancestor.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, of course we don't have a complete record.

So much for daisy-chaining then.

Nor do we need one.

You'd better come up with one then, or evolution can take a hike.

Why do you think we need to know the date of every event?

Is that what I said in my OP?

I'll ask for the date, you give me its representative physical biological piece of evidence.

A bone? a tooth? a tooth filling? a middle ear? something/anything?

Tell me exactly what date, time to the second, when you were no longer a baby, a toddle, an adolescent.

Which has nothing to do with my challenge.

If you can't then we can assume that God made you as an adult and you were never a child by your logic.

You can assume you're not addressing my challenge correctly; which I assume is par for the course around here.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, of course we don't have a complete record. Nor do we need one.

Why do you think we need to know the date of every event?

Tell me exactly what date, time to the second, when you were no longer a baby, a toddle, an adolescent. If you can't then we can assume that God made you as an adult and you were never a child by your logic.

What if those pictures were found somewhere without any date or time or name. And what if the baby, adolescent and adult pictured were extremely similar/nearly identical to AV but were in fact, not really AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does your friend Daisy know Luka? He is considered to be the Last Universal Common Ancestor.

Methinks they never knew each other.

The gap between them being too wide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What if those pictures were found somewhere without any date or time or name. And what if the baby, adolescent and adult pictured were extremely similar/nearly identical to AV but were in fact, not really AV?

You mean like the fossil record is very very close to how life evolved on Earth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So much for daisy-chaining then.

Yep, it was a foolish idea.

You'd better come up with one then, or evolution can take a hike.

Wrong, you can take a hike. Science, and intelligent people all around the world does not care what you believe.

Is that what I said in my OP?

Yes, pretty much. I see that you are having doubts and you should. It was quite the boner on your part.

I'll ask for the date, you give me its representative physical biological piece of evidence.

A bone? a tooth? a tooth filling? a middle ear? something/anything?

What? English please. What you are asking for is quite unclear.

Which has nothing to do with my challenge.

Actually it does. It shows how foolish your challenge was. That is why you dodged the question.

You can assume you're not addressing my challenge correctly; which I assume is par for the course around here.

Wrong again, which IS par for the course. You asked a stupid question and you did not like the answer. That is typical of you and your "tests".

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, it was a foolish idea.

Foolish?

You mean it belongs to atheists?

I disagree ... this one's my puppy.

And if it was [sic] a foolish idea, then can I count on an atheist answering it properly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Foolish?

You mean it belongs to atheists?

I disagree ... this one's my puppy.

And if it was [sic] a foolish idea, then can I count on an atheist answering it properly?

No, foolish ideas come from ignorant fundamentalists on this site.

Your idea was answered properly.

Once again you were wrong.

 

[EternalDragon]

You mean like the fossil record is very very close to how life evolved on Earth?

No, I mean how evolutionists mistake it for how life evolved on Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I mean how evolutionists mistake it for how life evolved on Earth.

No mistake has been made.

If that were the case someone should have been able to point one out in the last ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS.

 

[Valiantis]

Can we take every single piece of physical biological evidence for evolution that is currently on display everywhere, and line them up side-by-side in a way that can account for every single year in history since abiogenesis?

If so, if I just arbitrarily asked what piece of physical biological evidence represents 494,012 B.C., it could be produced?

Or are there more years in existence since abiogenesis, than there are pieces of physical biological evidence representing each individual year?

In other words: missing links that make daisy-chaining impossible?

It seems to me that you will do and say anything rather than face life full on, could fear be the cause?
if it is you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Deadbolt]

In order for this to be possible, wouldn't geology and meteorology need to function radically different than they are observed to be on this planet?

Since the occurrence of abiogenesis, the forces of plate tectonics and erosion have remade the surface of the Earth countless times. Presumably all kinds of fossils have been and are being lost all the time because in addition to needing specific conditions to be preserved in the first place, a paleontologist (armature or professional) must happen by at the precise geological blink of an eye that it happens to be exposed.

And then there's places like where I used to live where they said if your pet wanders off, you have three days to find anything left of it. I used to find bits of bone all over the place, but they were extremely deteriorated and presumably beyond any hope of fossilization. And that wasn't even that deep in the sticks!

All in all, I'd say it's amazing the fossil record is as complete as it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

In order for this to be possible, wouldn't geology and meteorology need to function radically different than they are observed to be on this planet?

Are you blaming such a large lack of evidence on the weather?

I have no problem with that, as long as we're not expected to fill in the gaps and play connect-the-dots.

Let's do some math:

1. Let's assume that the first cyanobacterium occurred in 3,500,000,000 B.C.

2. Let's assume the first Homo sapiens showed up in 500,000 B.C.

3. Let's allot 1 inch of space for each piece of representative physical biological evidence for our daisy chain.

That is a line 55,232 miles long.

Assuming we even have one billion pieces of physical evidence, with each piece representing a separate year, that's 15,783 miles of evidence, scattered along a 55,232 mile-long chain, or 28.576%.

Remember: just one missing piece is all it takes to fail this challenge.

Evolutionists would be running on 71.424% faith, thanks to 'geology and meteorology.'

And that's with a billion pieces of physical biological evidence!

 

[RedRover]

No, I mean how evolutionists mistake it for how life evolved on Earth.

They try to stack the deck and show how species are alike rather then to show they are different from each other. Like the photo of the skulls they love to show that is clearly Photoshopped to try and make them all look the same when in the real world they are very different from one another.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Are you blaming such a large lack of evidence on the weather?

I have no problem with that, as long as we're not expected to fill in the gaps and play connect-the-dots.

Let's do some math:

1. Let's assume that the first cyanobacterium occurred in 3,500,000,000 B.C.

2. Let's assume the first Homo sapiens showed up in 500,000 B.C.

3. Let's allot 1 inch of space for each piece of representative physical biological evidence for our daisy chain.

That is a line 55,232 miles long.

Assuming we even have one billion pieces of physical evidence, with each piece representing a separate year, that's 15,783 miles of evidence, scattered along a 55,232 mile-long chain, or 28.576%.

Remember: just one missing piece is all it takes to fail this challenge.

Evolutionists would be running on 71.424% faith, thanks to 'geology and meteorology.'

And that's with a billion pieces of physical biological evidence!

Can't say that's the dumbest thing I've read all week, but it's close.

By that same line of non-reasoning, assuming we even have one billion pieces of physical evidence, with each piece representing one second of your life, you are operating on 48% faith in your own existence.

And that's with a billion pieces of evidence!

You make an example of yourself every single time you attempt to reason from your cartoon worldview, so by all means, keep it up.

 

[AV1611VET]

They try to stack the deck and show how species are alike rather then to show they are different from each other. Like the photo of the skulls they love to show that is clearly Photoshopped to try and make them all look the same when in the real world they are very different from one another.

Haeckel's spirit lives on, eh?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can't say that's the dumbest thing I've read all week, but it's close.

By that same line of non-reasoning, assuming we even have one billion pieces of physical evidence, with each piece representing one second of your life, you are operating on 48% faith in your own existence.

And that's with a billion pieces of evidence!

You make an example of yourself every single time you attempt to reason from your cartoon worldview, so by all means, keep it up.

That's not a valid comparison and I believe you know it.

I'm not talking about things that are alive, I'm talking about things that are dead.

In fact, my daisy chain ends at y-Adam.

 

[Valiantis]

Are you blaming such a large lack of evidence on the weather?

I have no problem with that, as long as we're not expected to fill in the gaps and play connect-the-dots.

Let's do some math:

1. Let's assume that the first cyanobacterium occurred in 3,500,000,000 B.C.

2. Let's assume the first Homo sapiens showed up in 500,000 B.C.

3. Let's allot 1 inch of space for each piece of representative physical biological evidence for our daisy chain.

That is a line 55,232 miles long.

Assuming we even have one billion pieces of physical evidence, with each piece representing a separate year, that's 15,783 miles of evidence, scattered along a 55,232 mile-long chain, or 28.576%.

Remember: just one missing piece is all it takes to fail this challenge.

Evolutionists would be running on 71.424% faith, thanks to 'geology and meteorology.'

And that's with a billion pieces of physical biological evidence!

I know it must be painful for you to admit but the sciences are doing just fine without your crackpot interventions.

You just do not seem to get the fact that showing how other scientists have failed is the name of the game in science,
finding faults in other scientists hypotheses is what some scientists live for.

For a hypotheses to get to be a theory it must go through countless grinding mills of trials and tests and even then it is still called a theory and never a fact, do you know why a theory is never called a fact? because science realises more evidence might be available in the future that could change things.

Unlike religions, the sciences realise they will never know everything.

Why are the people without evidence always the most sure they are right?