Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

RickG · Jul 31, 2015

pat34lee said:
There is no transitional path from tiny 3 toed weasel looking horses to todays 1 toed horse. There are several paths of supposed horse genealogy going larger and smaller and horses with different numbers of toes living at the same time. The only thing that fossils prove about horse breeds is that there were once many different types that died off.

Then perhaps you can explain why we don't find any horse fossils in the Triassic, Cambrina, Ordividican, Silurian, etc., periods.

RickG · Jul 31, 2015

pat34lee said:
Heat has done nothing to increase order in that pan.

Actually they are gravity waves and they produce many more patters than the example provided. Perhaps criticizing something one is familiar with is more productive than that of what one is not?

AV1611VET · Jul 31, 2015

RickG said:
Then perhaps you can explain why we don't find any horse fossils in the Triassic, Cambrina, Ordividican, Silurian, etc., periods.

Because Triassic, Cambrian, Ordividican, Silurian, and etc. are made-up designations?

RickG · Jul 31, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Because Triassic, Cambrian, Ordividican, Silurian, and etc. are made-up designations?

And just what do you mean by that?

AV1611VET · Jul 31, 2015

RickG said:
And just what do you mean by that?

They're nothing more than made-up words.

Titles to snippets of time in the past that allegedly cover vast eons of time, when in fact, time has only been in operation since 4004 BC.

RickG · Jul 31, 2015

AV1611VET said:
They're nothing more than made-up words.

Titles to snippets of time in the past that allegedly cover vast eons of time, when in fact, time has only been in operation since 4004 BC.

Then we differ on our time scales. You, a scale devised by the fallibility evidence provided by man, an, and I, a scale provided by the physical evidence left by God's creation.

AV1611VET · Jul 31, 2015

RickG said:
Then we differ on our time scales. You, a scale devised by the fallibility evidence provided by man, an, and I, a scale provided by the physical evidence left by God's creation.

I'm sure atheists would disagree with you on this.

They wouldn't agree with me either, but they would disagree with you as well.

RickG · Jul 31, 2015

AV1611VET said:
I'm sure atheists would disagree with you on this.

They wouldn't agree with me either, but they would disagree with you as well.

The age of the earth has nothing to do with whether a person is a Christian, atheist, or anything a person believes or disbelieves.

AV1611VET · Jul 31, 2015

RickG said:
The age of the earth has nothing to do with whether a person is a Christian, atheist, or anything a person believes or disbelieves.

Sounds hip.

I disagree -- but it sounds hip anyway.

Loudmouth · Jul 31, 2015

whois said:
that's exactly why i have refered loudmouth to the issue of science and to the upload i provided.
it gives the context.
like other matters along these lines, come to your own conclusion.

It wasn't even written by Gould.

the issue isn't about gould anyway.
it's about what niles and ayala said.

Ayala's quote is second hand, and Ayala has already stated that he never said any such thing.

Already refuted.

Could you provide the specific Eldredge and the reference?

what is a transitional fossil at the species level anyway?

A transitional between species.

they allegedly found a whole trainload of them with hominids.
this is just another reason i question the entire paradigm of evolution.

Darwin already explained why we don't find a finely graduated series of transitional fossils. He wrote an entire chapter on it. Perhaps you should read it before making your mind up.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

honestly, there is so much fraud and deceit, it's a miracle that anyone buys it at all.

The only fraud and deceit is being pushed by you.

Loudmouth · Jul 31, 2015

pat34lee said:
The fact that you have a moon pulling at the oceans would tend to keep them from ever reaching equilibrium.

Yet another source of energy being put into Earth's systems that reduces entropy.

Take a small, say 100 piece puzzle. Add energy of any type. Did it self-assemble?

States of large pieces of matter is not the same as molecules. Puzzle pieces do not interact like molecules do. As Miller and Urey demonstrated, when you add energy to simple molecules you get more complex molecules, even molecules that life uses.

Loudmouth · Jul 31, 2015

pat34lee said:
There is no transitional path from tiny 3 toed weasel looking horses to todays 1 toed horse. There are several paths of supposed horse genealogy going larger and smaller and horses with different numbers of toes living at the same time. The only thing that fossils prove about horse breeds is that there were once many different types that died off.

It seems that you are yet another creationist who confuses transitional with ancestral. They aren't the same thing. We have horse transitional fossil species. Whether they are direct ancestors doesn't matter since transitionals don't need to be direct ancestors.

"A source of confusion is the notion that a transitional form between two different taxonomic groups must be a direct ancestor of one or both groups. The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that one of the goals of evolutionary taxonomy is to identify taxa that were ancestors of other taxa. However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. In fact, because evolution is a branching process that produces a complex bush pattern of related species rather than a linear process producing a ladder-like progression, and because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other. Cladistics deemphasizes the concept of one taxonomic group being an ancestor of another, and instead emphasizes the identification of sister taxa that share a more recent common ancestor with one another than they do with other groups."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Transitional_versus_ancestral

Loudmouth · Jul 31, 2015

whois said:
like i stated in the edit, the issue wasn't about gould.

The issue is about you using second hand quotes while ignoring the direct quotes from the people involved.

Loudmouth · Jul 31, 2015

pat34lee said:
Heat has done nothing to increase order in that pan. Patterns are not the same as information. That goes for crystals and snowflakes too.

Those are a lot of claims, but I see nothing backing them up.

RickG · Jul 31, 2015

Loudmouth said:
The issue is about you using second hand quotes while ignoring the direct quotes from the people involved.

Several years ago on another site I had a back-and-forth with a person on in a very similar way. The paleontologist who was quote mined was Henry Gee. Gee was making an argument for transitional fossils by first providing a scenario where there were none, which was followed by the explanation how that was wrong and how it was known that it was indeed well shown in the fossil record. That persons argument against evolution was that, "well, he said it"; even admitting, they understood it was out of context, but continuing that "he said it". The though process of some people just completely amaze me.

bhsmte · Jul 31, 2015

RickG said:
Several years ago on another site I had a back-and-forth with a person on in a very similar way. The paleontologist who was quote mined was Henry Gee. Gee was making an argument for transitional fossils by first providing a scenario where there were none, which was followed by the explanation how that was wrong and how it was known that it was indeed well shown in the fossil record. That persons argument against evolution was that, "well, he said it"; even admitting, they understood it was out of context, but continuing that "he said it". The though process of some people just completely amaze me.

The motivation is simple; they need to grab onto whatever they can, that would support their personal beliefs, even when what they grab onto, can easily be shown to have a different meaning, than they think it means.

It is really just desperation in action.

Loudmouth · Jul 31, 2015

RickG said:
Several years ago on another site I had a back-and-forth with a person on in a very similar way. The paleontologist who was quote mined was Henry Gee. Gee was making an argument for transitional fossils by first providing a scenario where there were none, which was followed by the explanation how that was wrong and how it was known that it was indeed well shown in the fossil record. That persons argument against evolution was that, "well, he said it"; even admitting, they understood it was out of context, but continuing that "he said it". The though process of some people just completely amaze me.

I really like Gee's response, too. You can find it here: http://ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/NCSE_2001_PBS_Evolution_series.pdf

The Discovery Institute’s Viewers Guide to the PBS “Evolution” series claims in several places (for example, on page 11) that the series “…leave(s) viewers with the misleading impression that the evidence for human evolution is much stronger than it really is.” The Guide attempts to discredit the scientific implications of the human fossil record by quoting (on pages 11, 40, 47, 88, and 111) passages from the 1999 book In Search of Deep Time by Dr. Henry Gee, who is also Senior Editor, Biological Sciences, for the journal Nature. Dr. Gee has sent us the following comments:
1. The Discovery Institute has used unauthorized, selective quotations from my book IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME to support their outdated, mistaken views.

2. Darwinian evolution by natural selection is taken as a given in IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, and this is made clear several times e.g. on p5 (paperback edition) I write that "if it is fair to assume that all life on Earth shares a common evolutionary origin..." and then go on to make clear that this is the assumption I am making throughout the book. For the Discovery Institute to quote from my book without reference to this is mischievous.

3. That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of ancestry and descent from the fossil record should be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any particular fossil we might find. Just try this thought experiment -- let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried with their birth certificates. Again, this is a logical constraint that must apply even if evolution were true -- which is not in doubt, because if we didn't have ancestors, then we wouldn't be here. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct what happened in evolution. Unfortunately, many paleontologists believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view. However, this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great scientific coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live by dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement is a mark of health rather than decay. However, the point of IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically, is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology 22 -- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers of documentaries -- is unscientific.

4. I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.

5. The above views are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my colleagues at NATURE or any opinion or policy of the NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP.

Henry Gee

RickG · Jul 31, 2015

bhsmte said:
The motivation is simple; they need to grab onto whatever they can, that would support their personal beliefs, even when what they grab onto, can easily be shown to have a different meaning, than they think it means.

It is really just desperation in action.

Frankly, I think its the best argument for God doesn't exist. Really! If that is what one has to do to support ones belief, that doesn't say much for the belief.

bhsmte · Jul 31, 2015

RickG said:
Frankly, I think its the best argument for God doesn't exist. Really! If that is what one has to do to support ones belief, that doesn't say much for the belief.

Well, people get into trouble when they get out over their skis and they make claims that help support their specific personal belief.

At the end of the day, no one can prove a God exists and no one can prove a God does not exist. It is only when completely off the wall claims are made, that can easily be proven wrong, that some folks expose themselves.

whois · Jul 31, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Could you provide the specific Eldredge and the reference?

yes.

Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Newbie

rational

Attachments

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency