Why evolution isn't scientific

Kylie · Sep 27, 2018

xianghua said:
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?

I'm sorry, but once again, I will tell you that I HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

If you have actual evidence against evolution, I WILL TAKE IT. If your evidence shows that evolution is false, I will agree that evolution is false. I have been abundantly clear on this.

I do not understand why you have ignored me when I have said this.

Now post your evidence and lets see if it holds up.

Ophiolite · Sep 28, 2018

VirOptimus said:
There has never been one <an out of place fossil>.

Not strictly true. I have long held the view that disbelief and doubt are essential tools for life in general and science in particular. It was therefore my practice, when younger, to place rocks and the occassional fossil in locations where they should not be. This was intended to promote hard questioning in the minds of any geologist who chanced upon them and thereby aid their professional development. Thus, out of place fossils do exist.

xianghua · Sep 30, 2018

Kylie said:
I'm sorry, but once again, I will tell you that I HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

If you have actual evidence against evolution, I WILL TAKE IT. If your evidence shows that evolution is false, I will agree that evolution is false. I have been abundantly clear on this.

I do not understand why you have ignored me when I have said this.

Now post your evidence and lets see if it holds up.

so you dont want to answer yes or no. ok. i cant bring you such an example if you cant even answer this simple question. sorry.

Bungle_Bear · Sep 30, 2018

xianghua said:
so you dont want to answer yes or no. ok. i cant bring you such an example if you cant even answer this simple question. sorry.

You have had at least 4 posters give you a "yes" answer, but still you won't play. We know you have nothing, you know you have nothing so why continue this ridiculous posturing?

For the record, I'll say "yes" here and now. If you can produce a fossil that really is 12354 I'll accept evolution is bunk.

xianghua · Sep 30, 2018

Bungle_Bear said:
You have had at least 4 posters give you a "yes" answer, but still you won't play. We know you have nothing, you know you have nothing so why continue this ridiculous posturing?

For the record, I'll say "yes" here and now. If you can produce a fossil that really is 12354 I'll accept evolution is bunk.

thanks for this clarification. here is your out of place fossil:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08623

now, with this new fossil the fossil order is look like this (image from wiki):

see the bottom left creature? its predate many of its transitional fossils. so instead of 12345 we actually find something like 51234. so i guess that evolution is false now by your criteria.

Bungle_Bear · Sep 30, 2018

xianghua said:
thanks for this clarification. here is your out of place fossil:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

now, with this new fossil the fossil order is look like this (image from wiki):

see the bottom left creature? its predate many of its transitional fossils. so instead of 12345 we actually find something like 51234. so i guess that evolution is false now by your criteria.

That has been explained to you several times. I thought you'd at least bring something new to the table. I'm very disappointed but not surprised.

xianghua · Sep 30, 2018

Bungle_Bear said:
That has been explained to you several times. I thought you'd at least bring something new to the table. I'm very disappointed but not surprised.

and here comes the excuse. its funny since i can bring you many other examples.

here is one from the whale evolution:

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution

and if its true then it will look like this (the first whale predate all its "missing links"):

(image from berkeley site)

now, can you admit that evolution is false like you promised?

Bugeyedcreepy · Sep 30, 2018

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

How about a Mammal appearing before Synapsids existed? or a Mammal with Feathers? a Lizard or Dinosaur with Mammary Glands? there's so many to choose from. If such a thing were found, then we'd know about it already - and we'd know about it very clearly given the implications it'd have for the Theory of Evolution, and the fame & notoriety that would befall the scientist(s) who found it.

Justatruthseeker · Sep 30, 2018

Bugeyedcreepy said:
How about a Mammal appearing before Synapsids existed? or a Mammal with Feathers? a Lizard or Dinosaur with Mammary Glands? there's so many to choose from. If such a thing were found, then we'd know about it already - and we'd know about it very clearly given the implications it'd have for the Theory of Evolution, and the fame & notoriety that would befall the scientist(s) who found it.

Really? How many mammals are on display in museums alongside the dinosaurs???? Since they obviously co-existed, why are they never displayed together????

Why would a dinosaur have mammary glands since none evolved into mammals being mammals already existed? Strawmen.....

Kylie · Oct 2, 2018

xianghua said:
so you dont want to answer yes or no. ok. i cant bring you such an example if you cant even answer this simple question. sorry.

Are you even reading the posts I write?

I have said VERY CLEARLY that if you post actual evidence of the type you describe that I WILL accept it! What part of "I will take your evidence" is confusing? What part of "If your evidence shows that evolution is false, I will agree that evolution is false" is confusing?

Kaon · Oct 2, 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.

Indeed, it is academic, not scientific.

DogmaHunter · Oct 2, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Really? How many mammals are on display in museums alongside the dinosaurs???? Since they obviously co-existed, why are they never displayed together????

Why would a dinosaur have mammary glands since none evolved into mammals being mammals already existed? Strawmen.....

WOOSH!
The sound of the point flying over your head.

If you would have a basic understanding of the evidence for evolution, more specifically the nested hierarchies, you would understand how it would be extremely problematic to find dino's with mammary glands or mammals with feathers.

xianghua · Oct 2, 2018

Bugeyedcreepy said:
How about a Mammal appearing before Synapsids existed? or a Mammal with Feathers?

a mammal with feathers? a "convergent evolution". what is the problem?

xianghua · Oct 2, 2018

Kylie said:
Are you even reading the posts I write?

I have said VERY CLEARLY that if you post actual evidence of the type you describe that I WILL accept it! What part of "I will take your evidence" is confusing? What part of "If your evidence shows that evolution is false, I will agree that evolution is false" is confusing?

the problem is that you cant even answer a simple "yes or no" question.

Tinker Grey · Oct 2, 2018

xianghua said:
the problem is that you cant even answer a simple "yes or no" question.

This is just dishonest. You ask "Will you accept if ..." and she responds "I will accept if ...". To which you respond "That's not a yes or no."

Edited: spelling

Shemjaza · Oct 2, 2018

xianghua said:
a mammal with feathers? a "convergent evolution". what is the problem?

Lie

Kylie · Oct 3, 2018

xianghua said:
the problem is that you cant even answer a simple "yes or no" question.

No, the problem is that you don't read my posts because I DID answer it.

Bungle_Bear · Oct 3, 2018

xianghua said:
a mammal with feathers? a "convergent evolution". what is the problem?

The problem is your refusal to listen when people explain things to you.

If you were to spend 1/10 of the time you spend arguing actually listening and understanding what others explain to you we probably wouldn't have to put up with your incessant ignorant trolling.

DogmaHunter · Oct 3, 2018

xianghua said:
a mammal with feathers? a "convergent evolution".

No.

what is the problem?

The problem is your ignorance on the topic you pretend to be an expert in

xianghua · Oct 3, 2018

Tinker Grey said:
This is just dishonest. You ask "Will you accept if ..." and she responds "I will accept if ...". To which you respond "That's not a yes or no."

Edited: spelling

i actually asked here: if i will show you a case of 12354 instead of 12345 you will admit that evolution is false or not? and she never answered this question.

Why evolution isn't scientific

Defeater of Illogic

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Regular Member

Defeater of Illogic

Whoot!

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency