-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why evolution isn't scientific
- Thread starter xianghua
- Start date
- Status
i actually didnt talked about tiktaalik but about this finding:
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland
Upvote
0
but you said that according to evolution its impossible to find a 200 my bear fossil. so i showed that there is no such a limit.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Nope, you did not. You only demonstrated a lack of understanding at best.
Upvote
0
the point is that this fossil contradict the creature phylogeny and therefore is evidence against evolution according to your criteria. its like a human fossil that predate great apes.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, it didn't. Why would you think that it did? This is simply a strange claim on your part.
Upvote
0
You didn't show any such thing. You asserted it, without any evidence or support. To show "there is no such limit" you'd actually have to show something. You keep claiming to have evidence of a 200my bear, but you never produce that evidence. Any reasonable person would conclude that you're talking nonsense and have nothing more than hot air. So, please either produce your evidence or admit that you have none.
Upvote
0
why? because its a more modern creature that appeared too early. its like finding first human at the fossil record and then great apes.
Upvote
0
but in this case this rabbit fossil will just push back rabbit evolution. again: by this logic evolution is already false since tetrapods were supposed to evolve about 360 my ago. so finding a 395 my old fossil of tetrapod should falsify evolution too.
so where is the limit? by pushing it 20 my earlier? 30my?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
are you saying that we cant push bear evolution? if you agree that we can push it back then you also need to agree that we can push it back to about 200 my ago. otherwise you will make no sense.
Upvote
0
but we both agree that we can push bear evolution. right? so the question is where is the limit. i say that there is no such a limit. you say that there is such a limit. so where is your limit? so far you gave no specific answer. so your claim that such a limit exist has no evidence.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
But it did not appear "too early". Again, why did you make this error?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,999
- 52,622
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Evolution has been shown to be correct countless times. We could begin to go over the evidence for it, but that would take lifetimes. Meanwhile creationists cannot seem to find any reliable evidence against the concept. You may as well proclaim gravity to be wrong.
The bigger question is why you have to reject reality. I always wonder if it is a matter of faith. If one's faith cannot stand up to reality what does that tell us about that person's beliefs.
Let's switch it around a bit. There really is no difference between arguing against evolution and arguing against a spherical Earth. Both arguments are usually based upon a poor understanding of the sciences and a literal reading of the Bible. Why is a Flat Earth wrong and Creationism right?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
