Why evolution isn't scientific

[DogmaHunter]

realy? so where is the limit that we can push back the first tetrapod?. give me a number.

You don't know?
Why are you presenting yourself as some kind of expert on evolution, if you don't even realise why it would be a problem for evolution to find a tetrapod in pre-devonian rock?

Here's a hint: if you find mammals before amphibians show up, evolution is in trouble.
If you find amphibians that show up before mammals, then evolution is standing tall.

 

[DogmaHunter]

no. you clearly said that you agree that if we will find 12354 instead of 12345 you will admit that evolution is false. so we do find such a case. why you ingore it?

At least 5 people have explained to you why your tetrapod track example, is NOT such a case.
Why do you keep ignoring this?

 

[xianghua]

Because, as has been explained to you already, there is an explanation.

if so your claim that series of fossils like 12345 is evidence against evolution is incorrect. since in any such case we can give an explanation.

 

[xianghua]

You don't know?
Why are you presenting yourself as some kind of expert on evolution, if you don't even realise why it would be a problem for evolution to find a tetrapod in pre-devonian rock?

Here's a hint: if you find mammals before amphibians show up, evolution is in trouble.
If you find amphibians that show up before mammals, then evolution is standing tall.

why you didnt answer the question? where is the limit that we can push back the first tetrapod? give me a number. what about 450my tetrapod fossil?

 

[DogmaHunter]

if so your claim that series of fossils like 12345 is evidence against evolution is incorrect.

Only if one is so vague about what "12345" represents that one can change what they represent in the blink of an eye, to make anything support anything. Like you do.

I asked you at least 7 times to properly define what the numbers represent. The best I got out of you was "fossils". And I do mean ONLY that word.

It's too ridiculous to even pay any attention to.

since in any such case we can give an explanation.

We'll only know that, once you become honest enough to define your terms before using them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

why you didnt answer the question? where is the limit that we can push back the first tetrapod? give me a number. what about 450my tetrapod fossil?

I already told you.
It's not my fault that you are too dense to comprehend the posts you claim to be reading.

I say "claim", because I'm not convinced that you actually read the posts you are replying too. For obvious reasons.

Also, YOU, of all people, don't get to demand me to answer your questions. Or is this a "do as I say and not as I do" kind of thing?

I asked you 7 times to properly define what the numbers represent in your silly "12345" challenge. I'm still waiting for a proper answer that isn't so vague that it could mean anything.

 

[VirOptimus]

if so your claim that series of fossils like 12345 is evidence against evolution is incorrect. since in any such case we can give an explanation.

No, its you who dont understand. The fossils support evolution, there has never been one that dis-proves the theory.

Just because the ToE theoreticly could be disproven by out of place fossils doesnt mean that it has or that there are such fossils!

 

[xianghua]

No, its you who dont understand. The fossils support evolution, there has never been one that dis-proves the theory.

of course. since any fossil according to evolution is ok with the theory. this is why its isnt scientific.

 

[xianghua]

Only if one is so vague about what "12345" represents that one can change what they represent in the blink of an eye, to make anything support anything. Like you do.

I asked you at least 7 times to properly define what the numbers represent. The best I got out of you was "fossils". And I do mean ONLY that word.

It's too ridiculous to even pay any attention to.


We'll only know that, once you become honest enough to define your terms before using them.

its simple: if numbers represent fossils then the right order should look like this: 12345. but out of order fossil should look like 12354. so now fossil number 5 predate its ancestor (or something close to). this is why my tetrapod example is out of place.

 

[HitchSlap]

its simple: if numbers represent fossils then the right order should look like this: 12345. but out of order fossil should look like 12354. so now fossil number 5 predate its ancestor (or something close to). this is why my tetrapod example is out of place.

Have you not figured out why ToE is scientific, yet?

 

[VirOptimus]

of course. since any fossil according to evolution is ok with the theory. this is why its isnt scientific.

No, thats not how it works. You should really learn science 101. This is embarassing for you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

its simple: if numbers represent fossils then the right order should look like this: 12345. but out of order fossil should look like 12354

You are still being as vague as ever.
What kind of fossils? You need to be specific here........
Otherwise it's meaningless.

so now fossil number 5 predate its ancestor (or something close to). this is why my tetrapod example is out of place.

Really? So what does your tetrapod example predate that it shouldn't predate?

 

[Kylie]

if so your claim that series of fossils like 12345 is evidence against evolution is incorrect. since in any such case we can give an explanation.

Of course, there are many conceivable situations that would NOT be explainable. A bird in precambrian rocks. A fossil bear in the Triassic. There are many things which evolution says are completely impossible. So don't pretend that we are saying that evolution can explain everything, because it can't. There are many things which evolution could never explain, and funnily enough, we never actually find those things in reality. Which is exactly what we'd expect if evolution was the correct explanation.

 

[Kylie]

if so your claim that series of fossils like 12345 is evidence against evolution is incorrect. since in any such case we can give an explanation.

No, not in any such case. A fossil of a mammal in the precambrian would have no explanation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which means what? Finches becoming ummm finches?????

As you have been told so many times, if finches produce anything other then finches, then evolution is falsified.

 

[xianghua]

As you have been told so many times, if finches produce anything other then finches, then evolution is falsified.

its also true for creationism. so creationism is now science?

 

[DogmaHunter]

its also true for creationism. so creationism is now science?

No.

 

[xianghua]

Really? So what does your tetrapod example predate that it shouldn't predate?

all the allegedly "missing links" between fishes and tetrapods.

 

[DogmaHunter]

all the allegedly "missing links" between fishes and tetrapods.

So basically, new tetrapod evidence predates the oldest tetrapod evidence we had previously, but doesn't predate its own ancestors, being fish.

This is why it isn't a problem.
Tetrapods are expected to show up in devonian rock.
The tetrapod tracks are found in devonian rock.

There is no problem.

Got any tetrapods that predate fish? No? Didn't think so.

 

[xianghua]

Of course, there are many conceivable situations that would NOT be explainable. A bird in precambrian rocks. A fossil bear in the Triassic.

so if we will find a bear fossil that is about 200 my old evolution will be false?