proving evolution as just a "theory"

[omega2xx]

Grasping is not Holding. Pedantry can work both ways.

But in any case, paws are not flippers not matter how you try and stretch the definition. And that admission proves you were wrong. Paws are not flippers and you have agreed that otters have paws. Has legs, feeds in the sea, not extinct.

In any case you have no evidence the paws have never been anything but paws and seal flipper have never been anything but seal flippers.

 

[omega2xx]

It does not eliminate intermediate fossils, it explains why intermediates between species are rare compared to intermediates between higher level groups.

Gradualism is not a proof of evolution its a description of the overall average rate at which evolution occurs.

You are half right, which is better than you usually are.

 

[omega2xx]

Otters don't have flippers, they have LEGS with clawed, five toed feet. The feet have varying amounts of webbing but are not fins.



Otters do feed on land as well as in the water, you really don't know what an otter is do you?

I have never heard anyone say look at that seals legs.

Note the paws.

 

[omega2xx]

Here Mayr is arguing for punctuated equilibrium. And, he's talking about fossils that are intermediate between species. If gradualism is true, then we'd see slow change in fossils, rather than (geologically speaking) quick emergence of species. There are plenty of intermediate fossils, meaning fossils between major groups such as Tiktaalik. And these fossils are still being found today, meaning that the fossil record is much more complete than it was when Mayr was researching.

You appear to be trying to use the quote from Mayr to argue against evolution as a whole. If so, that is a blatant quote mine. Mayr is talking about the speed of speciation, not saying that there isn't a well defined evolutionary tree. Note that in the same book where the above quote came from, Mayr says:



Mayr in no way doubts evolution. The quote that you quote mined is talking about the speed of emergence of new species, and is comparing the theories of gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium.

What is it about "New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates you don't understand?

 

[omega2xx]

Have you ever thought of going to look at the evidence yourself? Who are you that we should hand it to you on a plate? You go on as if you had a better explanation for the diversity of life which it was our responsibility to disprove.

All I have done is ask for the evidence that supports evolution. Why not present what you consider evidence in stead of avoiding such a simple request?

 

[omega2xx]

You've been presented with evidence. You made excuses so that you could ignore it.

Nothing you will ever be presented with is going to get through to you. You won't let it.

Evidently you still think opinions are verifiable.

 

[OzSpen]

Don't tell me what he paper says. Tell me what it provides as evidence for what they say.

What is 'he paper'?

 

[OzSpen]

YEC [young earth creationism] on the other hand is something that the Bible specifically claims to be true about the universe and life.

Brad,

Please provide the biblical evidence that specifically supports YEC?

With your support of YEC, are you claiming the Bible supports an earth that is approx 6,000 years old?

Oz

 

[AV1611VET]

With your support of YEC, are you claiming the Bible supports an earth that is approx 6,000 years old?

God created the universe with age embedded into it.

However old it is, it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

 

[Jimmy D]

Evidently you still think opinions are verifiable.

I think that the ERV evidence is verifiable. I think the fact that you have continually failed to acknowledge it is testament to your dishonesty.

 

[Jimmy D]

What you tell me is that you can only whine about something you don't understand and can't produce any evidence for what evo fundies have believed by faith alone.



News flash, unless you can proved what they say is wrong and what you accept by faith alone is true, guess who is lying.

Not bothered by the fact you could be spreading falsehoods and misrepresting people? Nice.

Can’t be bothered to spend two minutes looking for the actual passage to check?

Each to his own I suppose. I wouldn’t want to behave in such a way but then I’m only an atheist.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes. Pick any doctrine of Darwin and present the scientific evidence that makes it true.

I have ask several to provide the evidence for natural selection. I am sure with your great knowledge of science that should be a piece of cake for you.

Evidence for natural selection? And you’ve taken 3 college courses you say? What exactly were they teaching you, the “law of genetics”?

 

[Astrophile]

Delete.

 

[pitabread]

Evidently you still think opinions are verifiable.

Evidently you have no idea what scientific evidence entails. Which isn't surprising given how you've gone out of your way to avoid it.

 

[pitabread]

All I have done is ask for the evidence that supports evolution.

You're not asking in good faith given you're already demonstrated no interest in receiving said evidence.

So why are you here really?

 

[doubtingmerle]

So why are you here really?

To prove that he is willing to copy more 50 word quotes than you, I think.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And you’ve taken 3 college courses you say? What exactly were they teaching you, the “law of genetics”?

Apparently the ancient sheep herders that wrote the books he was studying were not familiar with DNA.

 

[pitabread]

No friend your confusing two ideas. One can arrive at belief in an infinite, intelligent source of the universe and life apart from the Bible.

Sure, I'll buy that.

YEC on the other hand is something that the Bible specifically claims to be true about the universe and life.

I'd amend this statement slightly: YEC is something that particular individuals claim the Bible claims to be true about the universe and life.

Those of us who espouse YEC are saying that we believe that there is nothing observable through scientific observation which contradicts the Bible, but rather it harmonizes with it if one examines it honestly.

I believe that you believe this. But it hasn't borne out in practice. As I already pointed out, YECism is contradicted by every branch of the natural sciences, plus human history to boot.

I don't believe for a second that believing in YECism involves an "honest" examination of the evidence. Rather, it starts with a particular interpretation of the Bible, then force fits or otherwise ignores anything else to the contrary.

Again, I can point to multiple independent lines of evidence that demonstrate a 4.6 billion year old Earth and solar system. I can't point to a single independent line of evidence that points to a 6000 year old Earth and solar system.

A child sitting on the beach and watching the ocean gradually move grains of sand can't tell if all that sand got dumped there in one big storm or over millions of years of gradual ocean churning. Likewise we can't tell how old something is or is not based on what we observe right now.

This isn't correct. We can in fact tell how old something is based on what we observe now. We observe existing process and their outcomes, and then extrapolate based on other observed evidence of said processes.

Even your own example of a giant storm dumping a huge pile of sand versus gradual build-up of millions of years would yield different outcomes.

A great example is something like the Lake Suigetsu varve chronology. Here you have an example of an observable process, specifically the depositing of alternating layers of specific composition based on seasonal cycles. And then you that outcome of said process, which is a series of alternating layers based on those compositions. Counting said layers yields an age of at least 50,000 years if not older. There is a good write up on it here: Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology It's the perfect example of something which contradicts YECism and indeed shouldn't even exist if the YECist claims of history (particularly the global flood) were true.

But we have nothing that proves it did not happen the way the Bible claims, and some things which suggests it did.

If you perform an honest examination of the evidence, you'll loads of contradictions as a result of scientific inquiry and observable evidence versus what YECists claim.

I already gave you some examples in my prior post. Do you need them repeated?

 

[doubtingmerle]

God created the universe with age embedded into it.

However old it is, it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

Ah so if we find a dino fossil that dates to 100 million years ago, that dino never existed? God just put bones down there in rock that looked old to make it look like a dino was once there? Isn't that deceptive?

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparently the ancient sheep herders that wrote the books he was studying were not familiar with DNA.

They didn't have to be.

Their job was to walk by faith, and God would take care of the DNA.

Example:

Genesis 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
Genesis 30:40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.

This example confuses even scientists today, who can't figure out the missing ingredient (God) in the equation.

So they say it didn't happen as documented.

Scientists are idiots ... lost and on their way to a place prepared for the devil and his angels.

But there's hope, if they'll just put down their clipboards and listen.