proving evolution as just a "theory"

[doubtingmerle]

realy? so i will use this image to prove that truck evolved from a car:

(image from Commercial Car Insurance | Girard Insurance)

Evolution requires organic reproduction that modifies DNA. Since these vehicles do not have DNA or produce babies, they are not subject to biological evolution.

But possibly some of the drawings for the truck were based on drawings from the car. That is how machines copy designs.

Animals do it differently.

now, you can say that those vehicles cant reproduce. but even if they were able to reproduce it will not prove any evolution.

Do your fictitious reproducing cars have babies and DNA, with the DNA sometimes changing when they have babies?

I have asked you many times and have not seen your answer. Are these self-reproducing car of yours animals or machines? You will avoid my question, yes?

and we also dont have any stepwise way to evolve many system in those vehicles. like my hearing example in a living creature.

I have asked you many times if you agree that animals can do some things that machines cannot do.

Why do you not answer questions?

but its predate most of those suppose "transitional fossils". so those fossils are in the wrong order.

Answered in my previous post. Why do you just ignore what we write?

 

[xianghua]

Not a problem for evolution.

of course. since evolution isnt scientific nothing is problem for evolution.

 

[doubtingmerle]

when we realy check the data we can find many fossil in the wrong place, as i showed above with the whale example.

No you did not. You showed a fossil that said whale evolution might have taken 4 million years, rather than 15 million years as originally thought. Your one fossil is just a part of a jaw, and is subject to interpretation. The jury is still out as to whether whale evolution took 4 million years or 15 million. None of this refutes evolution.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Duh, it requires superior intelligence to reason.

"superior" to what? Do you even have a meaningful definition of "reason," or are you just tossing out random terms?

The legal system recognizes that and doesn't try those creatures who cannot understand the charges against them.

What are you going on about now? What does the legal system have to do with being made in God's image?

Of course not. I once paid a quarter to watch a chicken play the piano. Animals cannot judge between good and evil. Only Humans and God can. Gen 3:22

Is that you only definition of "reason"? the ability to judge good and evil?

To EVERY other creature on planet Earth.

Ah, so you're saying that they, too, have intelligence. They, too, can reason... we're just the best at it.

I'd like to see you reason over this:

Put five human in a room together -- me, you, and any other three of your choice. Do you agree that of those five people, one of them has "superior intelligence" to the other four?

Mathematically speaking, one of us five must be the literal and figurative "smartest guy in the room" -- let's assume for the purpose of this discussion that it's me -- did God do that? Did God make me smarter than you?

While you're attempting to reason that out, let's try the same scenario, only with five different animals: A goldfish, a snake, a horse, a cat, and a gorilla. Again, one of those creatures is going to be smarter than the others. God's will, or simple math?

It's the difference between reasoning Humans and innocent animals.

You keep tossing these words around -- "reasoning," and "innocent," for example -- but I doubt that you have any idea what they mean. Care to prove me wrong by providing a definition or two?

 

[pitabread]

(image from The evolution of whales)

so again: if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then why a fossil in the wrong order isnt evidence against it?

This is where a deeper understanding is needed of both biological evolution and what "transitional fossils" entail.

Evolution is NOT a strictly linear, ladder-like process. This is something which can be misconstrued due to the way diagrams of evolutionary progression are often presented. For example, that whale diagram depicts a very linear progression, but the reality isn't likely that linear at all.

The thing to remember is that evolution tends to be a branching process, whereby populations of organisms split and diverge in various paths. And the level of morphological change between different populations can vary wildly depending on specific circumstances of those individual populations.

The result is that it's possible to have a species which has transitionary features of its ancestors existing at the same time as other species that may have more morphological divergence. This is whereby transitional fossils are defined by features that link two or more taxa. It doesn't necessarily have to be a direct ancestor, and I imagine in most if not all cases, it probably isn't a direct ancestor. But rather transitional fossils are representative of evolutionary transitions based strictly on morphological features. Yet some of those transitional species may have continued to exist even well after the evolution of said morphology. After all, there is nothing requiring a transitional species suddenly go extinct if its population splits and branches off into something else.

Thus, finding an "out of order" whale fossil isn't the big issue you make it out to be when we're still within the time frame when whale evolution is thought to have occurred. If we found more modern whale fossils much earlier, by tens or hundreds of millions of years, that would be a much bigger issue.

 

[Aman777]

Maybe your daughter is right.

How do you know that cats cannot think and make moral decisions?

Because legal system knows not to bring charges against any animal since they are not intelligent enough to understand the charges against them. Instead, they try their Human owners.

 

[Aman777]

"superior" to what? Do you even have a meaningful definition of "reason," or are you just tossing out random terms?

Reason is the ability to judge between good and evil. Your continued life depends on your ability to accomplish this. Those who choose evil are eliminated.

What are you going on about now? What does the legal system have to do with being made in God's image?

Nothing. It's your confusion since you have NO idea what being made in God's Image is. Only Humans can be created in God's Image but some of them are too smart, in their own minds, to understand.

Is that you only definition of "reason"? the ability to judge good and evil?

Amen. Gen 3:22 shows that Adam was made with an intelligence like God's with the ability to know both good and evil. ONLY the people who have inherited Adam's superior intelligence have this ability, since mindless Nature does NOT have any intelligence.

The reason Humans were made with this ability is because we are destined to have dominion or rule over "every living thing that moveth upon the earth". Gen 1:28

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because legal system knows not to bring charges against any animal since they are not intelligent enough to understand the charges against them. Instead, they try their Human owners.

God is under the legal system.... good to know.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Reason is the ability to judge between good and evil. Your continued life depends on your ability to accomplish this. Those who choose evil are eliminated.

Good and evil? That's it? You're conflating "morality" with reasoning.

Consider a sociopath or psychotic... can they "reason"?

Nothing. It's your confusion since you have NO idea what being made in God's Image is. Only Humans can be created in God's Image but some of them are too smart, in their own minds, to understand.

You're the source of my info on this -- it's a wonder anyone understands.

Again, of course, if you want to conflate morality with reasoning, that's your business -- just don't expect others to follow your error.

Amen. Gen 3:22 shows that Adam was made with an intelligence like God's with the ability to know both good and evil.

Clearly you haven't actually read any of the passages before that one. You might want to go back and discover what man was actually "made" with, and what he took.

 

[OzSpen]

God created the universe with age embedded into it.

Who said? Please provide the biblical evidence to support your claim.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Evidently you do not understand what verifiable means.

Evidently you would be wrong. I bet I understand it better than you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who said?

Peter.

Please provide the biblical evidence to support your claim.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because legal system knows not to bring charges against any animal since they are not intelligent enough to understand the charges against them. Instead, they try their Human owners.

You also cannot bring charges against toddlers. But they are still smart and have a rudimentary understanding of right and wrong.

 

[David_M]

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.

That was not your claim, your claim was that no mammal with legs rather than flippers could survive if it hunted in a marine environment. Reality, and you own admission, shows that you were wrong. It says much of your character that you cant even admit you forgot, or didn't know, about sea otters.

 

[David_M]

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

Why would they? Seals have flippers. It Otters who have legs. Have you ever seen an Otter?

You know, the animals that you forgot about that have legs but live and hunt in the sea much as seals do.

 

[David_M]

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?

Well, there is that word "usually" which means that sometimes they are connected by intermediates (you know, those things that you claim don't exist at all). I seem to remember that there are some marine deposits that have excellent fossils for many lineages of molluscs and/or trilobytes that demonstrates how they evolved with a wealth of intermediates.

 

[David_M]

its actually in the wrong order as you can see:

Except it is not in the wrong order as Pakicetus dates to just over 50 million years ago.

So the new find is younger than Pakicetus.

And even if it was a bit older that would not make it out of place as it has the features that transition between land and marine. To be out of place we would need to find it much older, placing it before any possible ancestor evolved such features.

 

[OzSpen]

Peter.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

AV,

In #5789 you stated, 'God created the universe with age embedded into it'.

I asked for biblical evidence to support your claim. You cherry pick one verse from 2 Peter 3:5 (KJV) to support your claim.

That does this verse state in context?

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, ‘Where is this “coming” he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’ 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed 2 Peter 3:3-6 NIV).​

Verse 5 says nothing whatsoever about God's creation in the beginning having age embedded into it.

It deals with what will happen in the last days with scoffers following evil desires.

Verse 5 states clearly that in the last days people will deliberately forget that 'long ago' the heavens and the earth came into being by God's word.

Not a word here about the universe being created with age embedded into it. What is motivating you to reach your eisegetical conclusion - your reading into the text what is not there?

Oz

​

 

[xianghua]

Evolution requires organic reproduction that modifies DNA. Since these vehicles do not have DNA or produce babies, they are not subject to biological evolution.

but even if they had all those traits they still be evidence for design rather then a natural process. so the same is true for creatures.

Do your fictitious reproducing cars have babies and DNA, with the DNA sometimes changing when they have babies?

for the sake of the argument lets say yes.

Are these self-reproducing car of yours animals or machines? You will avoid my question, yes?

call it whatever you want. it will make no different.

I have asked you many times if you agree that animals can do some things that machines cannot do.

of course. so what?

Answered in my previous post. Why do you just ignore what we write?

no. the new fossil belong to a basilosaurus. means its predate georgiacetus that suppose to be more primitive:

Georgiacetus - Wikipedia

"Uhen 2008 created a new clade, Pelagiceti, for the common ancestor of Basilosauridae and all of its descendants, including Neoceti, the living cetaceans. He placed Georgiacetus near the base of this clade together with Eocetus and perhaps Babiacetus because of the assumed presence of a fluke and very compressed posterior caudal vertebrae in these genera.[2]"

now you can say that we may find some fossils in the future to close the gaps but in science we go by the evidence we have and not by the evidence we dont have. so my question again: if a fossil in the correct place is evidence for evolution then why a fossil in the wrong place isnt evidence against it?

 

[xianghua]

Thus, finding an "out of order" whale fossil isn't the big issue you make it out to be when we're still within the time frame when whale evolution is thought to have occurred. If we found more modern whale fossils much earlier, by tens or hundreds of millions of years, that would be a much bigger issue.

no it will not be an issue for evolution. as i showed with the tetrapod tracks- its predate its suppose ancestor by about 15-20 my. and even in this case they doesnt say that evolution is false. they just claiming for more missing fossils or convergent evolution (tetrapod evolved twice). so again: if a fossil in the correct order is evidence for evolution then a fossil in the wrong place should be evidence against it.