Question

[Subduction Zone]

You are aware, of course, that the heliocentric model is false, aren't you? The Sun is not the center of the universe, nor do the planets in the solar system go round the sun.

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/solarsystem_barycenter.pdf

"Although it is convenient to think of the Sun as the stationary anchor of our solar system, it actually moves as the planets tug on it, causing it to orbit the solar system's barycenter. The Sun never strays too far from the solar system
barycenter."

Yes, but it was an improvement over the Church and Bible sanctioned geocentric system.

And I did not check your link, but I did not think that the Sun ever left the barycenter. Just as the Earth never leaves the barycenter of the Earth/Moon orbit.

 

[Delphiki]

You are aware, of course, that the heliocentric model is false, aren't you? The Sun is not the center of the universe, nor do the planets in the solar system go round the sun.

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/solarsystem_barycenter.pdf

"Although it is convenient to think of the Sun as the stationary anchor of our solar system, it actually moves as the planets tug on it, causing it to orbit the solar system's barycenter. The Sun never strays too far from the solar system
barycenter."

You are aware that solar system and universe aren't the same thing, aren't you?

And I'm pretty sure the sun moves enough to leave the barycenter... but I understand your need to be pedantic after you've been made a fool about everything else so far.

 

[Delphiki]

Not at all. I have never denied that the frequency of alleles might not change from generation to generation.

Yeah? Then I guess you're done here without anything practical to offer. Go play in traffic now, Skippy.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are aware, of course, that the heliocentric model is false, aren't you? The Sun is not the center of the universe, nor do the planets in the solar system go round the sun.

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/solarsystem_barycenter.pdf

"Although it is convenient to think of the Sun as the stationary anchor of our solar system, it actually moves as the planets tug on it, causing it to orbit the solar system's barycenter. The Sun never strays too far from the solar system
barycenter."

Reminds me of this Asimov quote.

". . . when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."--Isaac Asimov, "The Relativity of Wrong"

I would suggest that you read the entire essay:

Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong

 

[sfs]

Unfortunately the theory of evolution is unable to make specific, clear, measurable predictions. It's kind of like astrology in that way.

Of course evolution makes predictions. In fact, I've told you some of them previously. But you ran away from that thread, didn't you?

I must be missing the logic. Let me recap.

1. The frequency of alleles changes.
2. Sometimes this frequency of alleles creates new species (accepted only for the sake of argument).

THEREFORE

All living species share a common ancestor.

Where did you get the idea that was the logic? Scientists observe evidence for the relatedness of all life (in biogeography, in fossils, in morphology, and especially in genetics). They also observe that species change continually and can be seen splitting into two. They conclude that these observed processes explain the large amount of evidence for relatedness.

Do you have any substantive arguments against evolution?

 

[juvenissun]

Of course evolution makes predictions. In fact, I've told you some of them previously. But you ran away from that thread, didn't you?


Where did you get the idea that was the logic? Scientists observe evidence for the relatedness of all life (in biogeography, in fossils, in morphology, and especially in genetics). They also observe that species change continually and can be seen splitting into two. They conclude that these observed processes explain the large amount of evidence for relatedness.

Do you have any substantive arguments against evolution?

I really like to see a fossil example on that. I am sure there are quite a bit wishful thinkings involved in the reconstruction of that particular example. It has to be. And it is one of the obvious problem for evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

I really like to see a fossil example on that. I am sure there are quite a bit wishful thinkings involved in the reconstruction of that particular example. It has to be. And it is one of the obvious problem for evolution.

It seems that you have already erected the creationist evidence shield. Any and all evidence will be called "wishful thinking" no matter what it is, or how solid the evidence is.

What would be more impressive is if you could outline the type of evidence that you would need to see, and be specific. For example, describe the pattern of differences and similarities you would expect to see in genomes if evolution were true. You could also describe the type of features you would expect to see in a transitional fossil if evolution were true. I am betting you will never do that.

 

[46AND2]

I really like to see a fossil example on that. I am sure there are quite a bit wishful thinkings involved in the reconstruction of that particular example. It has to be. And it is one of the obvious problem for evolution.

Why ask for a fossil for that? sfs said that it has been observed.

Asking for a fossil is like asking for an extremely grainy video to prove that a concert that you attended occurred.

 

[HitchSlap]

I never post here but I have a question for those who believe in evolution. Please don't turn this into a debate, just answer the question please.

If we supposedly evolved from monkeys/apes/gorillas, then why are they still around?

God Bless

Great question!

Born Again Christian Stephen Baldwin vs Atheist Richard Dawkins - YouTube