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.
but i already showed here other case that is very similar to this theoretical bear case. and as we have seen- no problem for evolution. so the bear case isnt different.
100 my is also nothing (geologically speaking). so i see no difference from 20 my vs 100.Except you didn't. 18 million years, geologically speaking, is nothing. In terms of a clock, it's not even a second. Your idea however can only work WITH evidence.
100 my is also nothing (geologically speaking). so i see no difference from 20 my vs 100.
but there is no such a way to prove such a situation even if it was real. this is why evolution isnt testable.
Your 200mu old bear is, indeed, irrelevant. So why do you keep harping on about it?but its irrelevant to the question if evolution is scientific or not.
but i just showed you that evolution can explain everything. this is the problem.
You are still wrong, xianghua.but i just showed you that evolution can explain everything. this is the problem.
Still wrong, xianghua, as explained to you before.the tetrapod fossil appear before the missing links between tetrapods and fishes. so its out of place.
but its irrelevant to the question if evolution is scientific or not.
but there is no such a way to prove such a situation even if it was real. this is why evolution isnt testable.
but i already showed here other case that is very similar to this theoretical bear case. and as we have seen- no problem for evolution. so the bear case isnt different.
i already gave here several examples like in the whale case and this tetrapod one:It can't be proven. That's not the way science works. It's up to you to find evidence which will dis-prove the theory. That's how science works--it's based on inductive logic. Confirming evidence does not "prove" a theory it only confirms it, and the theory is then held provisionally until evidence comes along which contradicts it.
Do you have any real evidence that a species is been found to have existed before its supposed precursor? That is the evidence which will "test" the theory of evolution.
No you didn't. Evolution could NOT explain 200 million year old bears
this is the problem. any fossil can be fit with evolution. later or eariler.
This has been explained to you many, many times so you know you are making a dishonest claim. It is not really acceptable behaviour to continue making this claim. Pleased desist.i already gave here several examples like in the whale case and this tetrapod one:
Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland
what is the problem? just push back bear evolution. problem solved.
You do realise that evolution doesn't actually work like that?
It can't be proven. That's not the way science works. It's up to you to find evidence which will dis-prove the theory. That's how science works--it's based on inductive logic. Confirming evidence does not "prove" a theory it only confirms it, and the theory is then held provisionally until evidence comes along which contradicts it.
Do you have any real evidence that a species is been found to have existed before its supposed precursor? That is the evidence which will "test" the theory of evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?