What you aren't being told about astronomy

[juvenissun]

Therefore we know that your geneology is false. Yes?

-CryptoLutheran

My ancestry?
I don't know what is true or false, but I do not personally recognize my great grandfather.

 

[juvenissun]

Perhaps some day you can demonstrate that knowledge?

I am doing that whenever is needed.

 

[Loudmouth]

This goes back to an argument from another thread. Gases in space
cannot be made to compress to the point of becoming stars.

We already showed you the math that demonstrates they can.

http://astro.physics.uiowa.edu/~rlm/mathcad/addendum 4 chap 17 stellar evolution 1.htm

It appears that you are still ignoring the math.

If the
hydrogen atoms were water molecules, you could not cause them
to become dense enough tocause rain.

Do you have something other than bare assertions?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I am doing that whenever is needed.

It's needed every time you claim it. Still waiting....

 

[juvenissun]

It's needed every time you claim it. Still waiting....

claim what?

 

[AV1611VET]

We have never seen a mountain range form either. I guess there are no mountains.

God formed the mountains.

Psalm 65:6 Which by his strength setteth fast the mountains; being girded with power:

 

[pat34lee]

We already showed you the math that demonstrates they can.

It appears that you are still ignoring the math.

I told you the problem with the math. Anything can be done in math,
but not always in nature.

 

[ViaCrucis]

My ancestry?
I don't know what is true or false, but I do not personally recognize my great grandfather.

If being unable to name the unknown pre-hominid ancestor of hominids disproves our descent from said ancestor, then it follows that being unable to name any given ancestor disproves descent from said ancestor.

I don't know the name of my great-great grandfather, ergo I do not have a great-great grandfather.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

If being unable to name the unknown pre-hominid ancestor of hominids disproves our descent from said ancestor, then it follows that being unable to name any given ancestor disproves descent from said ancestor.

I don't know the name of my great-great grandfather, ergo I do not have a great-great grandfather.

-CryptoLutheran

The philosophy of biological evolution is unique though, in that, after having found something in the ground, it is given a label -- say Homo habilis (handy man).

Then, after being so labeled, it suddenly becomes a member of a race of Homo habilis.

Then, after this race suddenly appears on the books out of nowhere, it is assumed that you & I are the offspring of this race.

One lie on top of another lie on top of another ...

 

[Hoghead1]

You have to do labeling. There is no way around that. If it is seen as an ancestor, that is simply because it represents behaviors very similar to ours.

 

[Hoghead1]

P.S. Hondo habilis was so labeled, as there is strong evidence this species was one of the first makers of stone tools.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't know if it is true.

You know that that is the way evolution theory lays it out.

We have never see it happened.

And we don't need to either.
More then that even, if we WOULD observe such changes in a single human life time, then the theory in its present incarnation would be WRONG.

Funny how you creationists always demand to see "evidence" that would actually disprove theory, in order to supposedly accept evolution theory.

And then you wonder why we call you intellectually dishonest....

So you should not be so confident about it.

We've never seen Pluto complete an orbit either. You should not be so confident that Pluto will actually complete a single orbit, ever.

 

[DogmaHunter]

None.

Yet, you feel you are in a position to tell millions of actual professional biologists, geneticists, etc that they have no clue what they are talking about and that they couldn't be more wrong if they tried.

Excuse me while I laugh my socks off.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution of bacteria does not support the evolution of dinosaurs AND humans.

Indeed. The evolution of dino's and humans support the evolution of dino's and humans. And there's more then enough evidence proving both. Yes, you read that right. I said "proving".

 

[DogmaHunter]

We did evolve from monkeys, at least in the sense that if we could meet our Oligocene ancestors, or the ancestors that we share with modern monkeys, we should say that they were monkeys. Of course, we didn't evolve from any modern species of monkey, but that should be obvious.

If we didn't evolve from monkeys, in the sense described in my first sentence, what did we evolve from? And why is it so difficult to believe that we evolved from monkeys, or at least from something that looked as much like a monkey as makes no difference?

If I recall correctly from high school, it would be cladistically wrong to call that creature a "monkey", just like it would be cladistically wrong to call the ancestors of Tiktaalik "fish".

A "fish" is a specific modern animal (well, "group of animals"...) and a very different beast then the sea life that existed before any creatures roamed the land. Doesn't the same go for "monkeys"?

Perhaps I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What do you mean by the right time and the right place? How could the time and place be wrong?

Rabbits in pre-cambrian strata are "the wrong animal at the wrong time in the wrong place" if evolution is correct.

No rabbits (or any other mammal) in pre-cambrian strata is what we expect if evolution is correct.

And unsurprisingly, no mammal has ever been found in pre-cambrian strata.

You knew this, off course. You're just trolling again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So it happened.

Just not on your watch.

Right?

No.

Just because you can't observe the event itself doesn't mean that there can't be any evidence for it.

Ask any murder detective. Murders without any witnesses are solved all the time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I do accept. I only tried to explain what I would do to your third one. I don't have problem with the other two.

All right then. I just wanted to be sure.
I'm going to use RickG's example since it's the best one out there: the fossil record.
The fossil record shows a myriad of creatures that have died and been fossilized throughout Earth's history. Virtually all of them show descent through modification (Basilosaurus evolving in to whales, therapod dinosaurs evolving in to birds, etc) and it shows each strata populated by animals that only exist in certain time periods. No mixing or jumbling. No therapod dinosaurs with trilobites, no ancient humans with Jurassic dinosaurs.

 

[juvenissun]

If being unable to name the unknown pre-hominid ancestor of hominids disproves our descent from said ancestor, then it follows that being unable to name any given ancestor disproves descent from said ancestor.

I don't know the name of my great-great grandfather, ergo I do not have a great-great grandfather.

-CryptoLutheran

They pushed me to name it. And I pushed it back. All of us do not know, even we have tried to construct the best human genealogy as we could do. At the end of the road, if we do not know, then we can not say we know.
Nobody can say that biological evolution is true, particularly for the Pope. That is my point.

 

[juvenissun]

All right then. I just wanted to be sure.
I'm going to use RickG's example since it's the best one out there: the fossil record.
The fossil record shows a myriad of creatures that have died and been fossilized throughout Earth's history. Virtually all of them show descent through modification (Basilosaurus evolving in to whales, therapod dinosaurs evolving in to birds, etc) and it shows each strata populated by animals that only exist in certain time periods. No mixing or jumbling. No therapod dinosaurs with trilobites, no ancient humans with Jurassic dinosaurs.

So?