Why evolution isn't scientific

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
FYI. Tetrapod is a man-made scientific term for animals. Humans are NOT animals...
That is very wrong, Aman777. This is an animal
Animals are multicellular eukaryotic organisms that form the biological kingdom Animalia. With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, are able to move, reproduce sexually, and grow from a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development. Over 1.5 million living animal species have been described—of which around 1 million are insects—but it has been estimated there are over 7 million animal species in total. Animals range in length from 8.5 millionths of a metre to 33.6 metres (110 ft) and have complex interactions with each other and their environments, forming intricate food webs. The study of animals is called zoology.
Every human being on this planet has more than 1 cell. Those cells are eukaryotic. Thus humans are animals.
This is a tetrapod
The superclass Tetrapoda (from Greek: τετρα- "four" and πούς "foot") contains the four-limbed vertebrates known as tetrapods (/ˈtɛtrəpɒd/); it includes living and extinct amphibians, reptiles (including dinosaurs and thus birds) and mammals (including primates, and all hominid subgroups including humans), as well as earlier extinct groups.
(my emphasis added).

Humans are four-limbed animals and tetrapods.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bungle_Bear
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
here you go. you see now why evolution isnt science and why even a 200 my bear will not be a problem for evolution? e.
You are repeating a "evolution isnt science" error again, xianghua. This is the scientific theory of evolution
The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the mid-19th century and was set out in detail in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species (1859).[6]
(my emphasis added)
Evolution is a scientific theory because it fits the definition of a scientific theory. Start with the evidence. Create a hypothesis as Charles Darwin did. Test that hypothesis against the exsiting evidence and we have a scientific theory. The scientific theory makes testable, falsifiable predictions. Test those predictions and we have a confirmed scientific theory.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - The Scientific Case for Common Descent

An imaginary, hypothetical 200 Ma year old bear is not a problem for anything. A real, confirmed 200 Ma year old bear would be a problem for evolution. The evidence as you know is that bears evolved roughly 38 Ma years ago.

Nothing presented in this thread shows the evolution is not science or even invalid.
Finding that a species of dinosaur evolved earlier does not falsify evolution because evolution does not state that every species evolved at fixed, specific dates. The dates that species evolved is driven by the evidence for the date of the evolution.

Citing debated evidence does not falsify evolution. The Zachelmie trackways may be natural formations. If they are not natural formations they may be fish nests/feeding traces. If they are not fish nests/feeding traces then they may be trackways from non-tetrapods, e.g. Tiktaalik. If they are tetrapod trackways then all they show is that the superclass (very many species) of tetrapod evolved earlier than the previous evidence showed.

That would leave the phylogenetic position of Tiktaalik pretty much what people have thought. Tiktaalik is a transitional species between one of the many species of fish and one of the many species of early tetrapod. It is one of many possible transitional species. Finding an earlier tetrapod means that Tiktaalik is a transitional species between later fish and tetrapod species.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
any fossil will have an explanation. this is the problem actually.
In the sciences explanations can be tested. One puts an explanation in the form of a testable hypothesis. If one does not do that then they make their claims worthless. They enter the realm of "Not even wrong".

In the sciences when one tests an idea and finds it to be wrong it often leads one to the solution to the problem. When one has an untestable idea, such as "God made everything last Thursday including your memories and the evidence that says the Earth is older than a weak" then one has an untestable idea. There is by definition no scientific evidence for that idea. It can't be shown to be wrong. And nothing can be learned from it. It is a worthless claim.

The fossil record right now is only explained by the theory of evolution. There is no other scientific explanation. At least not that I have heard of. Can you name a testable idea that does not use the theory of evolution for the fossil record? One of course that has not been refuted already.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
any fossil will have an explanation. this is the problem actually.
The reason every fossil will have an explanation is because every fossil fits the theory. How is that a problem? The problem would come if a fossil was found that didn't fit the theory.

You keep banging on about hypothetical "out-of-place" fossils. Until you can actually produce one, all you have is a hypothesis. Now go do some science and test your hypothesis. You'll find that the evidence you are looking for does not exist.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Oct 15, 2012
3,826
844
✟120,483.00
Faith
Atheist
any fossil will have an explanation. this is the problem actually.
Wrong, xianghua. That is how science works which is not a problem.
We learn about the real world and find out things such as not every animal in every generation will become fossilized. Fossils are rare. Make a prediction from evolution such as an explanation for the age and location of an fossil. Look for that fossil. If the fossil is found then that is evidence for the scientific theory of evolution. If the fossil is not found then that is what we expect from the incomplete fossil record and potential evidence against evolution.

This is Tiktaalik. A prediction from evolution is that there should be many transitional species between the many species of fish and the many species of early tetrapod. That gives a good probability of finding at least 1 transitional fossil. That fossil would be in freshwater. That fossil would be in strata with a specific date range.

Predicting Fossil Finds
They knew from previous fossil finds that something like Tiktaalik roseae would have appeared between 360 and 390 million years ago. The scientists also knew from previous research that the beast would have been in freshwater. So they got out a geological map and looked for places that met these criteria. They settled on Ellesmere Island in Canada and after five years, they found this marvelous fossil.
...
Scientists used evolution to make a testable prediction that turned out to be true. And evolution came through with flying colors like any good scientific theory should.

The search for Tiktaalik put our scientific theory to the test explained by the paleontologists who found Tiktaalik.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,810.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
any fossil will have an explanation. this is the problem actually.

No it won't.

There is no way to explain a fossil rabbit found in precambrian rocks. Nor is there any explanation for a fossil grizzly bear in 200 million year old rocks.

No naturalistic explanation anyway. I suppose we could say time travellers found a stowaway rabbit and left it behind all those hundreds of millions of years ago, but no one could take that seriously. Not unless there was a note left with it or something:

"Dear people of the future. This rabbit was found hiding on our time machine. Jim wanted to leave it behind as a joke to see what scientists would think, but I decided that I couldn't give the fundamentalists an excuse to claim it was evidence against evolution, so I'm writing this note to tell you it's just a stowaway from the future. Love, Kevin." :p
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What's up, Heisso? You never did explain what CRISPR has to do with evolution. Just the usual fluff, I suppose.

TRANSLATION: Being a creationist with no legitimate education or background in the relevant sciences, when people who have legitimate scientific knowledge present things that I cannot understand, I just write some dopey, insulting blow-off to hide my fear and ignorance.



Not much - especially when you can use tested methods.

What tested methods of analysis are there for creation?

Nope - please tell me exactly what that is, since you pretend to know.


Wow. I Googled "A China in a China Cabinet" and got ZERO returns that were articles about CRISPR.

Did you make that up? See it on a creationist website?
What does it even mean? You know that there are over 100,000 papers on CRISPR in the literature, yes? But you seem to be implying that because this one paper that does not appear in a Google search by an unknown author about an unknown topic was 'pulled' that, what? Evolution is wrong? "Genetic sciences" are wrong? What is CRISPR's relevance to evolution? Do you even know?

It is called lying when you makes false claims referring to a phony paper.



And this is relevant to evolution how?


What about the Jammal ark hoax? How does that fare for Biblical Archaeology?


It would probably be better for you, Sin-wise, to stop pretending so much. But please, continue - you and those that act like you are actually helping our side out quite a bit.


So have you heard that the Ark Park is hemorrhaging money? Even unconstitutional taxpayer subsidies cannot help that money pit. Once you've conned the 'faithful', who else is going to waste money on a giant gift shop that doesn't even float?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
What's up, Heisso? You never did explain what CRISPR has to do with evolution. Just the usual fluff, I suppose.




So have you heard that the Ark Park is hemorrhaging money? Even unconstitutional taxpayer subsidies cannot help that money pit. Once you've conned the 'faithful', who else is going to waste money on a giant gift shop that doesn't even float?

Yup, even with a booming economy the Ark Park's first year was less than half of the projection and it has fallen off by over 10% this year. I wonder if they could turn it into a shopping mall?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
In the sciences explanations can be tested. One puts an explanation in the form of a testable hypothesis. If one does not do that then they make their claims worthless. They enter the realm of "Not even wrong".

In the sciences when one tests an idea and finds it to be wrong it often leads one to the solution to the problem. When one has an untestable idea, such as "God made everything last Thursday including your memories and the evidence that says the Earth is older than a weak" then one has an untestable idea. There is by definition no scientific evidence for that idea. It can't be shown to be wrong. And nothing can be learned from it. It is a worthless claim.

The fossil record right now is only explained by the theory of evolution. There is no other scientific explanation. At least not that I have heard of. Can you name a testable idea that does not use the theory of evolution for the fossil record? One of course that has not been refuted already.
first: have you read my opening post? by the way english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general:

Why evolution isn't scientific
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
The reason every fossil will have an explanation is because every fossil fits the theory. How is that a problem? The problem would come if a fossil was found that didn't fit the theory.

but any fossil will fit the theory. even a 100 my human.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
No it won't.

There is no way to explain a fossil rabbit found in precambrian rocks. Nor is there any explanation for a fossil grizzly bear in 200 million year old rocks.

No naturalistic explanation anyway. I suppose we could say time travellers found a stowaway rabbit and left it behind all those hundreds of millions of years ago, but no one could take that seriously. Not unless there was a note left with it or something:

"Dear people of the future. This rabbit was found hiding on our time machine. Jim wanted to leave it behind as a joke to see what scientists would think, but I decided that I couldn't give the fundamentalists an excuse to claim it was evidence against evolution, so I'm writing this note to tell you it's just a stowaway from the future. Love, Kevin." :p
funny but we can still made an explanation to a 200 my old bear. we just can push back bears like we push back any other fossils.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
first: have you read my opening post? by the way english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general:

Why evolution isn't scientific
You start off with an incorrect claim. A fossil out of place does not necessarily falsify the theory. An extreme case would, but the one that you cited was nowhere near being an extreme case. Theories very often undergo refinements over the years. Our understanding is continually improving. I remember one case of bird fossil footprints "out of place". Well it turns out they they were not. The fossils were found in a mountain range and mountain ranges quite often have complex geology. There was an unidentified thrust fault that made the material look as if it were older than it actually was.

What you need is a clear example of a fossil out of place, not a dinosaur that appeared slightly earlier than it was thought that it should appear.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
but any fossil will fit the theory. even a 100 my human.
No, it wouldn't. That would be an example of a fossil severely out of date. The first primates did not appear until roughly 63 million years ago if I remember correctly. A 100 million year old man would tell us that something was seriously wrong with the theory.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
No, it wouldn't. That would be an example of a fossil severely out of date. The first primates did not appear until roughly 63 million years ago if I remember correctly. A 100 million year old man would tell us that something was seriously wrong with the theory.

Tell that to Leaky, but the pigs beat him out of their dating.....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.