Why evolution isn't scientific

[Kylie]

who said that evolution is wrong because we cant falsify it? i just said that its unscientific. and so far you just proved my claim.

You have not shown a single thing that shows that evolution is unscientific.

You don't understand science in general, and you don't understand evolution in particular.

Honestly, trying to talk to you about evolution is like trying to play a game of chess with someone who thinks he has won because he got three in a row.

 

[xianghua]

Is your claim that Humans designed humans?
Because that is the only claim you have proved with your own words.

my claim is that human was designed.

 

[xianghua]

Nope, you are grasping at straws now by making false claims about scientists. One needs the forerunners to species. If the forerunners are found and a species is found to exist before them then the theory is in trouble. Nothing like that has happened.

why we cant push back primates evolution according to evolution?

 

[xianghua]

OK. I will indulge this irrelevant fantasy yet again and give an equally irrelevant number of 13.8 billion years !

The point remains that fantasies about fossils are not real fossils and mean nothing. Making claims about what you imagines scientist would accept just makes things worse.

so you cant make a prediction of that limit. why im not surprise?...

 

[Subduction Zone]

why we cant push back primates evolution according to evolution?

As I stated, that would violate phylogeny. If a modern species appears before its earliest phylogenetic ancestor that would be a huge problem for evolution. The example that you gave was not such an example. Our evolution is well supported. A man that appeared just 10 million years ago would show that there was something seriously wrong in our understanding of human evolution. That particular line of dinosaurs is not as well supported by the fossil record. That an earlier than expected species was found is surprising, but not problematic. That is if the dating is correct. Sometimes such fossils have been misdated. For example strata in mountainous areas may be more difficult to date than strata in areas that are flat. Folding and thrusting can lead to errors.

 

[xianghua]

You have not shown a single thing that shows that evolution is unscientific.

You don't understand science in general, and you don't understand evolution in particular.

Honestly, trying to talk to you about evolution is like trying to play a game of chess with someone who thinks he has won because he got three in a row.

again- ad hominem. instead of dealing with me please deal with my claims kylie.

 

[tas8831]

my claim is that human was designed.

By humans.

That is the ONLY conclusion that could be drawn from your arguments via analogy to human activity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

By humans.

That is the ONLY conclusion that could be drawn from your arguments via analogy to human activity.

Why?

You take the analogy of humans designing chemical molecules in the lab and then assign it to natural forces....

So why is he unable to take the analogy of humans designing things and apply it to natural forces??????

 

[46AND2]

so you cant make a prediction of that limit. why im not surprise?...

You're not surprised because you already know the answer. You admitted yourself that you can't provide an exact time of when you became an adult. What you're requesting is the same thing. We've already been through this. Why are you pushing it again?

 

[RealityCheck01]

so you cant make a prediction of that limit. why im not surprise?...

Try actually reading the post, xianghua.

If we are indulging in irrelevant fantasies, why not push back primate evolution to 4 billion years, xianghua ?

The point remains that fantasies about fossils are not real fossils and mean nothing. Making claims about what you imagine scientists would accept just makes things worse.

I answered an irrelevant fantasy about a limit with another irrelevant fantasy and emphasized that with a .

There is no way to give a hard number. One reason is because the fossil record is incomplete. People who learn about fossils and the fossil record can guess. The current evidence is that Homo sapiens appeared ~315,000 years ago. So a guess would be double that: ~630,000 years. Or maybe we are already close to the origins of humans so ~316,000 years. Or not that close: ~415,000 years. Or maybe we have been looking in the wrong places, look elsewhere and find a ~1,000,000 year old Homo sapiens fossil.

That is why it is finding fossils that are well before their preceding species that is the general criteria to invalidate evolution. A Precambrian rabbit, human being or bear.

 

[Kylie]

again- ad hominem. instead of dealing with me please deal with my claims kylie.

Your claims show you have no understanding of evolution. You need to learn what you are talking about before you can expect to have a discussion about it.

 

[xianghua]

By humans.

no. by any possible designer.

 

[xianghua]

You're not surprised because you already know the answer. You admitted yourself that you can't provide an exact time of when you became an adult. What you're requesting is the same thing. We've already been through this. Why are you pushing it again?

so evolution has no such a limit too and therefore its unscientific.

 

[xianghua]

As I stated, that would violate phylogeny.

but this fossil also violate the phylogeny since its appeare too early:

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

 

[xianghua]

Your claims show you have no understanding of evolution. You need to learn what you are talking about before you can expect to have a discussion about it.

so you cant deal with my claims. thanks for this clarification.

 

[Subduction Zone]

but this fossil also violate the phylogeny since its appeare too early:

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

Wow!! You have that one hundred percent wrong. Tiktaalik not only did not appear to early. It was found by using the theory of evolution. It it an example of a successful experiment.

Like most creationists you should avoid handguns. You have a tendency to shoot yourself in the foot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so you cant deal with my claims. thanks for this clarification.

No, the problem is that you are like a child that cannot add two plus two demanding that someone explain integral calculus to him.

 

[xianghua]

Tiktaalik not only did not appear to early.

simply wrong. tiktaalik actually appeare to late, since it appeare after the first fossil evidence for a tetrapod.

 

[46AND2]

so evolution has no such a limit too and therefore its unscientific.

But the beginning of your adulthood does have a limit....just like evolution. Can you say that your adulthood started in 1776? Of course not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

simply wrong. tiktaalik actually appeare to late, since it appeare after the first fossil evidence for a tetrapod.

So now you are admitting your error.