Why evolution isn't scientific

DogmaHunter · Sep 25, 2018

xianghua said:
see in my first comment.

The fossil of your OP is not out of place.
It's 174 million years old, placing it firmly in the age of dino's.
Showing up a little sooner then previously believed, sure, but that's the equivalent of finding out that your dad is 2 years old then you thought he was.

An "out of place" fossil would rather be the equivalent of finding out that your supposed dad is 200 years older then you thought he was.

But why am I even bothering explaining this to you, right?

DogmaHunter · Sep 25, 2018

xianghua said:
i will do it when you will answer my simple question about your prediction. again: if i will show you a case of 12354 instead of 12345 you will admit that evolution is false or not? why its so hard for you to answer?

The problem with your question, is that you aren't honest about "12345" vs "12354".

The fossil in your OP does NOT make it "12354". It's still "12345".

Shemjaza · Sep 25, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Nebraska Man's fossil was never put on public display?

You know very well that is not what was meant.

There's a word for deliberately misinterpreting people to annoy them online.

AV1611VET · Sep 25, 2018

Shemjaza said:
There's a word for deliberately misinterpreting people to annoy them online.

Is it a form of the word you used in Post 451?

Shemjaza · Sep 25, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Is it a form of the word you used in Post 451?

No, more associated with living under bridges and harassing travelling goats.

AV1611VET · Sep 25, 2018

Shemjaza said:
No, more associated with living under bridges and harassing travelling goats.

Got it -- thanks.

AV1611VET · Sep 25, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
It was an obvious and well known to others lie, AV1611VET. It has even popped up in recent threads in this forum.

Hmmm ... maybe I should get around more, eh?

Kylie · Sep 25, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Nebraska Man

You're using something incorrect in an attempt to disprove something that is correct?

Come on, AV, you've been told about Nebraska Man before. Why do you bring up things that you know are wrong?

AV1611VET · Sep 25, 2018

Kylie said:
You're using something incorrect in an attempt to disprove something that is correct?

Come on, AV, you've been told about Nebraska Man before. Why do you bring up things that you know are wrong?

Where was Nebraska Man's fossil being housed, while his fame was starting to spread?

Bungle_Bear · Sep 25, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Where was Nebraska Man's fossil being housed, while his fame was starting to spread?

The problem with your line of argument is that you're leaving the door wide open to others using Inquisitions, witch hunts, geocentrism, support for slavery etc as perfectly valid accusations against Christianity. You leave yourself no room for rebuffing them without resorting to monumental hypocrisy.

46AND2 · Sep 25, 2018

Relax guys, he was making a joke. A fake fossil displayed in a museum=misplaced.

Kylie · Sep 25, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Where was Nebraska Man's fossil being housed, while his fame was starting to spread?

Irrelevant.

RealityCheck01 · Sep 26, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Where was Nebraska Man's fossil being housed, while his fame was starting to spread?

Probably the American Museum of Natural History is the answer to this irrelevant question. There was no real "fame" other than a bit of newspaper hype at the time and decades of creationist lies since then.
The role of "Nebraska man" in the creation-evolution debate

xianghua · Sep 27, 2018

Kylie said:
If you have been paying attention, you will see that I have answered this question in post 401 where I said, "If your evidence is valid evidence against evolution, then I promise I will consider it."

I also answered it in post 387 where I said, "if you show me a fossil horse that was found in pre-Cambrian rocks, I will completely agree that it is impossible according to evolutionary theory."

Now stop your blustering and post your evidence or admit you don't have any.

why you keep ignoring my question? again: if i will show you a case of 12354 instead of 12345 you will admit that evolution is false or not? why its so hard for you to answer?

xianghua · Sep 27, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
24 September 2018 xianghua: A dumb "so this kind of fossil will falsify evolution ot not" question.
This is what I wrote:

So finding undisputed mammal fossils in the Precambrian will falsify evolution.

7 September 2018 xianghua: A "thanks for proving again why evolution isnt science" lie
6 September 2018 xianghua: A "the problem with evolution is that it cant be test" lie.
6 September 2018 xianghua: "even a single out of place fossil- evolution will be false" ignorance
6 September 2018 xianghua: "just push back the evolution of the creature [dinosaur Lingwulong shenqi]" ignorance.

you said:: "evolution is not thrown away when a single piece of evidence is found that contradicts it"

so a 500my old mammal fossil will not be a problem for evolution. thanks.

BNR32FAN · Sep 27, 2018

xianghua said:
a scientific theory is a theory that we can test. mean it can be falsified. the problem with evolution is that it cant be test. for instance: some evolutionists (like dawkins and others) claiming that if we will find even a single out of place fossil- evolution will be false. but we actually found many such fossils like this one:

New dinosaur found in the wrong place, at the wrong time

but as you can guess- they just push back the evolution of the creature and dont claim that evolution is false. the problem is that in this way any fossil will not falsify evolution. other evolutionists claimed that if we will find more shared ervs with far species than close species evolution will be false. but in this case they can just claim for convergent evolution or convergent loss or even ils. so even such a case will not be a problem for evolution, and therefore its not a scientific theory by definition. as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general. thanks.

Science is cool and all but omniscience is way cooler!!

xianghua · Sep 27, 2018

RealityCheck01 said:
I say 1 so:
24 September 2018 xianghua: Please give your example of an "out of place" fossil.
Remember that this is a fossil that is physically impossible to be in the place that it is found, e.g. a Precambrian rabbit.

but you said that even such a fossil will not be a problem for evolution. see above.

xianghua · Sep 27, 2018

Bugeyedcreepy said:
So, how is it out of place? What does it come before that it couldn't have? All this article is saying, is that we've learnt something new that we didn't know before. and Now we know. You know this is how science works, right?

by this way any fossil will be in the right place. so give me a definition of out of place fossil.

xianghua · Sep 27, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
The problem with your question, is that you aren't honest about "12345" vs "12354".

The fossil in your OP does NOT make it "12354". It's still "12345"

so if i will show you a case of 12354 instead of 12345 you will admit that evolution is false or not?

VirOptimus · Sep 27, 2018

xianghua said:
by this way any fossil will be in the right place. so give me a definition of out of place fossil.

There has never been one.

Why evolution isn't scientific

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Whoot!

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Defeater of Illogic

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency