Prove it or remove it challenge

[Extraneous]

Never heard of that one. Of course I do not waste my time to study fallacys.

I have observed that most people use their own fallacies to argue against other peoples fallacies. It usually only serves to make people sound more intelligent than they actually are.

 

[Extraneous]

Not all animals eat plants.

Thats true. Still though, it seems unlikely that animals evolved into plants. Least in my imagination anyway. I think we must have evolved from plants.

 

[lasthero]

Thats true. Still though, it seems unlikely that animals evolved into plants. Least in my imagination anyway. I think we must have evolved from plants.

Or - more likely - plants and animals lined diverged early on in their development.

No scientist is suggesting that plants evolved FROM animals or vice versa.

 

[Extraneous]

To be honest, its very difficult for me to imagine evolution at all. For a species to come into existence via evolution, a group of individual animals belonging to the same species would need to evolve all at the same time, both male and female as well. Mutations usually seem to cause disease as well, and i dont see how mutations can be a good thing. It just seems all so far fetched. I know God seems far fetched as well, but for me it makes more sense.

 

[Extraneous]

Or - more likely - plants and animals lined diverged early on in their development.

No scientist is suggesting that plants evolved FROM animals or vice versa.

I was just asking. I dont think scientists know how anything actually originated. That however is just my opinion.

 

[JackRT]

It's a dog eat dog world.

 

[JacksBratt]

Let's hope your kids get a better science education than you did.

Nothing in the field of science depends on or is changed by the events that happened 6000 or more years ago as evolution is concerned. The point is mute.

If creation is true, science still functions as it would if evolution was true.

The only difference is that evolution removes the NEED for a creator or living Intelligent designer. I say it removes the need as you can be an astute atheist and believe in the TOE. Many Theistic Evolutionists will keep the creator in the picture just in case.......

Creation demands a designer. Evolution removes Him. That is the only difference, as far as 99% of the population of this universe is concerned.

 

[JacksBratt]

What is this creationist obsession with "just one Lucy" and so on? It's just not true. Gene2Meme gave a great list of winged dinosaurs. Thinking more about transitional forms, we can look at fabled star of stage and screen... Velociraptor.

"Velociraptor, like other dromaeosaurids, had a large manus ('hand') with three strongly curved claws, which were similar in construction and flexibility to the wing bones of modern birds."

This pattern of three digits in the wing is found in modern birds (but not bats)

Wow, Cars evolved from Ferris wheels...... Had to have been this way. Look at all the similarities and you can follow the steps in it's evolution from Ferris wheel to dolly, to airplane to grocery buggy to child stroller to tank to car. It's amazing.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

To be honest, its very difficult for me to imagine evolution at all.

Argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy. Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't make it false. You are on the internet with endless information at your finger tips.

Mutations usually seem to cause disease as well

Most mutations are neutral. People are born with approximately 50 mutations.

and i dont see how mutations can be a good thing.

What about in Tibetans that have a mutation that allows them to live in high altitudes?
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/28/20/2189.full

 

[Paterfamilia]

Thats true. Still though, it seems unlikely that animals evolved into plants. Least in my imagination anyway. I think we must have evolved from plants.

The theory claims separate tracks from the single cell level. Plants followed one track and animals another. So it's incoherent to suppose that animals evolved from plants.

The real burdens for evolutionists to explain is not the fossil record, although I understand the rationale of the OP. I just don't think there is a satisfactory answer either for or against in the fossil record.

The real burden for Darwinists is abiogenesis, and further, the formation of new information in the DNA.

Just to illustrate, we used to use the term "simple cell". We now know that to be an oxymoron. The simplest cell has a half million base pairs of DNA and 1900 essential processes/structures to maintain life. Loss of any = no life.

How did that happen?

 

[Extraneous]

Argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy. Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't make it false. You are on the internet with endless information at your finger tips.



Most mutations are neutral. People are born with approximately 50 mutations.



What about in Tibetans that have a mutation that allows them to live in high altitudes?
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/28/20/2189.full

Its not fallacy, its just opinion. Those mutations you mention dont cause people to turn into Apes, just for example.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wow, Cars evolved from Ferris wheels...... Had to have been this way. Look at all the similarities and you can follow the steps in it's evolution from Ferris wheel to dolly, to airplane to grocery buggy to child stroller to tank to car. It's amazing.

You can't be serious, right?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Its not fallacy, its just opinion. Those mutations you mention dont cause people to turn into Apes, just for example.

The argument from person incredulity is a fallacy. You're basically saying "I don't believe that, so it must not be true."

 

[lasthero]

To be honest, its very difficult for me to imagine evolution at all. For a species to come into existence via evolution, a group of individual animals belonging to the same species would need to evolve all at the same time, both male and female as well.

That's not the way it works.

Mutations usually seem to cause disease as well,

No, they don't.

and i dont see how mutations can be a good thing.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

 

[Extraneous]

The theory claims separate tracks from the single cell level. Plants followed one track and animals another. So it's incoherent to suppose that animals evolved from plants.

The real burdens for evolutionists to explain is not the fossil record, although I understand the rationale of the OP. I just don't think there is a satisfactory answer either for or against in the fossil record.

The real burden for Darwinists is abiogenesis, and further, the formation of new information in the DNA.

Just to illustrate, we used to use the term "simple cell". We now know that to be an oxymoron. The simplest cell has a half million base pairs of DNA and 1900 essential processes/structures to maintain life. Loss of any = no life.

How did that happen?

Yes, and they make it sound all so undeniably proven, beyond any doubt whatsoever
I guess my opinion is that there is just way too much complexity for them to actually understand fully. Yet they say they do understand fully. I reserve the right to not trust their fallible observations however.

 

[lasthero]

View attachment 170111View attachment 170112

Wow, Cars evolved from Ferris wheels...... Had to have been this way. Look at all the similarities and you can follow the steps in it's evolution from Ferris wheel to dolly, to airplane to grocery buggy to child stroller to tank to car. It's amazing.

Evolution isn't just about similarities, it's about the PATTERN of similiarities. Evolution forms branching lines of descent into a nested hierchy. Cars DON'T.

 

[Extraneous]

The argument from person incredulity is a fallacy. You're basically saying "I don't believe that, so it must not be true."

No. I just believe that scientists are trying to find a needle in a haystack, so to speak. They say its there, but im skeptical.

 

[Extraneous]

Evolution isn't just about similarities, it's about the PATTERN of similiarities. Evolution forms branching lines of descent into a nested hierchy. Cars DON'T.

Even if those branches are there, that doesnt mean that they understand their meaning. I believe they are trying to understand things that are very complicated. Its easy to misinterpret the data. Thats what i believe.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No. I just believe that scientists are trying to find a needle in a haystack, so to speak. They say its there, but im skeptical.

I'm going to quote something you said in post #275:

I guess my opinion is that there is just way too much complexity for them to actually understand fully.

That right there is you stating an argument from incredulity. You are saying that because life is 'complex' (someone on the non-evolution side has yet to actually define complexity as they use it), then it must be wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Even if those branches are there, that doesnt mean that they understand their meaning. I believe they are trying to understand things that are very complicated. Its easy to misinterpret the data. Thats what i believe.

Let me ask one thing: do you have ANY degree in biological science?