Why evolution isn't scientific

[46AND2]

Actually it just switches the problem as now it's supposed predecessor's had to evolve on a different timescale. Shorter and shorter and shorter.....

Hence the "less likely" as it gets closer and closer to the "boundary."

 

[Kylie]

ok but you still didnt answered my question. where is the limit that we can push back the first bear? you agree that a 40 my old bear fossil is ok, and a 200 my old bear fossil isnt ok with evolution. so there must be a limit where we can push back the first bear. can you give the number please?

It can be pushed back exactly 67,637,194 years, 3 months, 15 days, 4 hours, 13 minutes and 57 seconds.

58 seconds.

59 seconds...

Really, there's no single point in time when it passes a limit. The further back you go, the less likely it is that you will find a creature that can be called a bear. Once we get back to a point where mammals do not have features that bears have (such as the shape of the earbones, or the kind of teeth, etc), we can reasonably conclude that bears are so unlikely as to be considered impossible.

And again I ask that if you have some evidence for bears 150 million years before the first fossils of them, please present it. Your imagination is not an argument against evolution. Your inability to understand evolution is not an argument against evolution.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a major clean do to multiple posts violating the following sitewide rule: Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
Please do not callout CF members by name, list or link back to their pasts posts.
This thread is a debate about theories. Evolution and Creation are theories. Keep that in mind when you debate and treat one another with respect.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[RealityCheck01]

False....

17 October 2018 Aman777: A statement ignorant about the meaning of tetrapod followed by irrelevant stories.
This is tetrapod. It means any animal with 4 (tetra) limbs (pod).
Count the number of limbs that you have, Aman777. Generally people come up with the number 4. You are a tetrapod, I am a tetrapod, it is true that humans are tetrapods .

This is just counting, not anything to do with your stories about blood, Noah, etc.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Finally,....

Nothing to do with the fact that tetrapod means animals with 4 limbs such as us.

 

[Aman777]

17 October 2018 Aman777: A statement ignorant about the meaning of tetrapod followed by irrelevant stories.
This is tetrapod. It means any animal with 4 (tetra) limbs (pod).
Count the number of limbs that you have, Aman777. Generally people come up with the number 4. You are a tetrapod, I am a tetrapod, it is true that humans are tetrapods .

FYI. Tetrapod is a man-made scientific term for animals. Humans are NOT animals, no matter what Trump and evolutionists have told you. Humans are God's children. Animals are what Humans are destined to rule. Genesis 1:28 Your Scriptural illiteracy is now legendary.

 

[Aman777]

Nothing to do with the fact that tetrapod means animals with 4 limbs such as us.

Maybe you and Trump are correct. NOT.

 

[xianghua]

There are no self-replicating car. When your analogy contains things that do not exist they are beyond worthless.

why you cant answer a simple theoretical question?

 

[xianghua]

Really, there's no single point in time when it passes a limit.

here you go. you see now why evolution isnt science and why even a 200 my bear will not be a problem for evolution? we can just push back bear evolution or we can claim for a geological process or something else. evolution will be just fine.

 

[Speedwell]

here you go. you see now why evolution isnt science and why even a 200 my bear will not be a problem for evolution? we can just push back bear evolution or we can claim for a geological process or something else. evolution will be just fine.

Which is the conclusion you had reached before you asked the question and which is why you showed no sign of listening to or trying to understand the answers you have been given--because they don't support your preconceived conclusion.

 

[VirOptimus]

why you cant answer a simple theoretical question?

Cant is wrong, I wont as its irrelevant and makes no sense.

Why cant you learn basic science?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

here you go. you see now why evolution isnt science and why even a 200 my bear will not be a problem for evolution? we can just push back bear evolution or we can claim for a geological process or something else. evolution will be just fine.

You didn't understand @Kylie 's post, did you? If you think that's what she said, please show us where.

 

[Kylie]

why you cant answer a simple theoretical question?

Didn't I go over that with you a while back? Why do you keep bring out the same tired and refuted arguments?

 

[Kylie]

here you go. you see now why evolution isnt science and why even a 200 my bear will not be a problem for evolution? we can just push back bear evolution or we can claim for a geological process or something else. evolution will be just fine.

Wow, you just don't understand what I'm saying at all, do you?

Are you an adult now? Yes? Good. 35 years ago, were you a child? Again, yes (as your profile says you are 37).

Now, please tell me at what point you stopped being an child and became an adult. Please give me the time and date, as well as detailing exactly what changes you went through at that point in time that caused you to be an adult.

 

[xianghua]

Which is the conclusion you had reached before you asked the question and which is why you showed no sign of listening to or trying to understand the answers you have been given--because they don't support your preconceived conclusion.

no. because they just dont fit with the scientific method. thats all.

 

[xianghua]

Cant is wrong, I wont as its irrelevant and makes no sense.

Why cant you learn basic science?

but i had the self replication abillity. so its a good analogy. so can you answer my simple question now?

 

[VirOptimus]

but i had the self replication abillity. so its a good analogy. so can you answer my simple question now?

What? You have a selfreplicating car? Show it.

No, your analogy is stupid.

 

[xianghua]

Wow, you just don't understand what I'm saying at all, do you?

Are you an adult now? Yes? Good. 35 years ago, were you a child? Again, yes (as your profile says you are 37).

Now, please tell me at what point you stopped being an child and became an adult. Please give me the time and date, as well as detailing exactly what changes you went through at that point in time that caused you to be an adult.

we cant. this is actually my point. there is no such a limit for evolution too...

 

[46AND2]

we cant. this is actually my point. there is no such a limit for evolution too...

Oh really? So we can just push back the beginning of your adulthood to 1776, then, can we?

 

[Kylie]

we cant. this is actually my point. there is no such a limit for evolution too...

So if you agree that evolution doesn't pass limits like this, why are you trying to get me to put a limit on when bears could have evolved?