Prove it or remove it challenge

[Murby]

Proof is not a scientific concept. Nothing we regard as scientific fact can be "proven", so your premise is flawed.

You're arguing silly and obscure semantics that have no practical meaning, not concepts or understanding. Its a waste of time and unproductive.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That is what makes the Bible different. The Bible can be confirmed by Science to be a fact.

Really? Where in science has the bible been confirmed to be a fact? Can you please cite the peer reviewed research papers? What was the falsifiable test that was run?

Yes there are translation problems and there are problems with the interpretation of the Bible. So not everyone understand the purity of the message we are able to receive from the Bible.

This is supposed to be the most important book with the most important message but it's incomprehensible to to somepeople?
You should really put some thought into what you are saying.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Here is a link showing 10 court cases dealing with this issue.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism

And creationism lost every single time. 0-10. Not a good track record, eh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And creationism lost every single time. 0-10. Not a good track record, eh?

That is why I thanked him for that post.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

This one?

Hi I will investigate further when I have time....

As for the long running request for what type of fossil do I want you to find. Well I have been thinking. Evolution is supposedly random, random mutations creating new species. What there should be in the fossil record is a lot of creatures with useless features, appendages. What I have seen so far is creatures that are all fully developed, they have only positive, worth while features, useful for the creature.

 

[The Cadet]

What there should be in the fossil record is a lot of creatures with useless features, appendages. What I have seen so far is creatures that are all fully developed, they have only positive, worth while features, useful for the creature.

How about the leg bones of a whale? How about the plantaris muscle in humans? How about chicken teeth? Ostrich wings? The eyes of blind, cave-dwelling animals? Snake pelvises?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Evolution is supposedly random, random mutations creating new species.

Mutations are random. Natural selection is not random.

What there should be in the fossil record is a lot of creatures with useless features, appendages.

You shouldn't move the goal posts. Plenty of fossil evidence has been shown to you but you don't seem to comprehend it. Ask questions if you have any. The word I think you are looking for is vestigial and it doesn't mean 'useless'
There are whales that have hip bones

Here is another helpful link for you: http://www.ck12.org/user:cndhZ25lckBuZXZjLmsxMi5tby51cw../section/Evidence-for-Evolution/

 

[RedPonyDriver]

http://evolution.about.com/od/evidence/ss/4-Vestigial-Structures-in-Humans.htm#showall

http://www.livescience.com/11317-top-10-useless-limbs-vestigial-organs.html

https://www.boundless.com/biology/t...igin-of-species-18/evidence-of-evolution-129/

 

[Ahermit]

Adapt and evolve. It is everywhere.
We even adapt and evolve from a hopeless sinner to a hopeful spirit.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Mutations are random. Natural selection is not random.



You shouldn't move the goal posts. Plenty of fossil evidence has been shown to you but you don't seem to comprehend it. Ask questions if you have any. The word I think you are looking for is vestigial and it doesn't mean 'useless'
There are whales that have hip bones

The way you said this was a bit confusing, it made me think you meant that there was a whale that had a hip bone but NO legs. But in reality the whale you are referring to is not a whale in the modern sense it, but a water borne creature that had hind legs.

Note the quote from the researches who found the whale:

The Vogtle Whale appears to have also had well-developed hind legs, though fossils from neither the legs nor tail were found. The pelvis (hip) bones were recovered and they show well developed ball sockets where the legs would have attached in life. This led researchers to question whether Georgiacetus swam with its hind legs and if it possessed a fluke. - http://www.georgiasfossils.com/10-a-whale-for-georgia.html

 

[RedPonyDriver]

The way you said this was a bit confusing, it made me think you meant that there was a whale that had a hip bone but NO legs. But in reality the whale you are referring to is not a whale in the modern sense it, but a water borne creature that had hind legs.

Note the quote from the researches who found the whale:

The Vogtle Whale appears to have also had well-developed hind legs, though fossils from neither the legs nor tail were found. The pelvis (hip) bones were recovered and they show well developed ball sockets where the legs would have attached in life. This led researchers to question whether Georgiacetus swam with its hind legs and if it possessed a fluke. - http://www.georgiasfossils.com/10-a-whale-for-georgia.html

http://ncse.com/cej/3/4/true-vestigial-structures-whales-dolphins

 

[FutureAndAHope]

How about the leg bones of a whale? How about the plantaris muscle in humans? How about chicken teeth? Ostrich wings? The eyes of blind, cave-dwelling animals? Snake pelvises?

All of the things you have mentioned can be the result of downward, or change in existing organisms (well formed features loosing function). What I am talking about is the creation of new random features. And I am talking about randomness, evolution if by random mutation would litter the fossil record with bizarre features, every creatures either has a purpose for its feature, or had a purpose. There are no truly purposeless features.

Leg bones in a whale (was a leg, developed but now lost purpose (according to evolution)).
Chicken teeth (would still have a purpose to hold food)
Ostrich wings (still look quite good, maybe a feature, but you could if you like say it is a feature on the way out)
Blind eyes (again a loss, not a gain)
Snake Pelvises (another loss)

How is it that every feature that is show in animals had a purpose? Surely a truly random process could not develop bursts of amazing useful function.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The way you said this was a bit confusing, it made me think you meant that there was a whale that had a hip bone but NO legs. But in reality the whale you are referring to is not a whale in the modern sense it, but a water borne creature that had hind legs.

Note the quote from the researches who found the whale:

The Vogtle Whale appears to have also had well-developed hind legs, though fossils from neither the legs nor tail were found. The pelvis (hip) bones were recovered and they show well developed ball sockets where the legs would have attached in life. This led researchers to question whether Georgiacetus swam with its hind legs and if it possessed a fluke. - http://www.georgiasfossils.com/10-a-whale-for-georgia.html

You do realize that that whale represents a necessary step in the evolution of whales don't you? Structures do not disappear in one lifetime. The ancestor of whales was a land mammal. As the various descendants spent more and more time in the sea the legs would have been used less and less as load bearing members. They would atrophy, as vestigial organs tend to do. Of course being vestigial does not mean that all use is lost. The remaining parts of the old legs still have a use, just as your appendix does. They merely no longer have the original use. Some people think that if a vestigial organ does something that means that it is not vestigial. Again, that is not the case, it only means that the organ had a different purpose originally.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Note the quote from the researches who found the whale:

The Vogtle Whale appears to have also had well-developed hind legs, though fossils from neither the legs nor tail were found. The pelvis (hip) bones were recovered and they show well developed ball sockets where the legs would have attached in life. This led researchers to question whether Georgiacetus swam with its hind legs and if it possessed a fluke. - http://www.georgiasfossils.com/10-a-whale-for-georgia.html

You should really read the entire article instead of dishonestly quote mining it. It doesn't support your position.
Another example of twisting the facts. I suggest that you stop reading creationist websites as it has clearly led you to regurgitate nonsense.

Since it's clear you are having a tough time grasping what that article is talking about and how it is evidence supporting evolution, I will direct you to a video titled "Evidence for evolution" It uses cetaceans as examples.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Surely a truly random process could not develop bursts of amazing useful function.

Please read this carefully so you do not make the mistake of saying this again:

Evolution is not a random process. The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

All of the things you have mentioned can be the result of downward, or change in existing organisms (well formed features loosing function). What I am talking about is the creation of new random features. And I am talking about randomness, evolution if by random mutation would litter the fossil record with bizarre features, every creatures either has a purpose for its feature, or had a purpose. There are no truly purposeless features.

But evolution is not random. Where did you get that idea from?

Leg bones in a whale (was a leg, developed but now lost purpose (according to evolution)).
Chicken teeth (would still have a purpose to hold food)
Ostrich wings (still look quite good, maybe a feature, but you could if you like say it is a feature on the way out)
Blind eyes (again a loss, not a gain)
Snake Pelvises (another loss)

Those are not necessarily losses, they are changes in use. Your lungs were a swim bladder in your ancient fish ancestors. Does the fact that you can no longer use them effectively for buoyancy control constitute a loss?

How is it that every feature that is show in animals had a purpose? Surely a truly random process could not develop bursts of amazing useful function.

Again this is a strange question because evolution is not random. There are two driving forces in evolution, variation which is a random change, and natural selection which is definitely not random. Natural selection keeps evolution from being a random process.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I think the OP is either not reading any of the links posted, or is intentionally obtuse. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Armoured]

You're arguing silly and obscure semantics that have no practical meaning, not concepts or understanding. Its a waste of time and unproductive.

It's a fundamental element of the scientific method. There's no point discussing things scientifically if you don't want to use the scientific method.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think you fully understand, Future how science works with bones and what it can do with them.

 

[Armoured]

Best analogy I've seen to describe this sort of thing;

Creationists complaining about the way science works is kind of like ice hockey players demanding entry into a soccer competition, then complaining the rules are unfair when they show up at the soccer field in ice skates and padding.