Yeah man, you know I'm out there doing just that...feel vindicated now? Or was it just the last word you wanted?
Upvote
0
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.
That's fine with me. As long as you don't try to push your peculiar ideas about the Bible into the public schools, I have no issue with it.
yep. this is why creation is a better explanation. actually its the only scientific explanation since we can test it.
the time when various common ancestors would have lived, that we can then search for (and find!) in rocks as fossils
If we start discovering rocks from the Permian that contain rabbit fossils, and then find large numbers of out of order fossils, then evolution would be falsified.
see above. lets see if you can deal with that before we will move on.Note: I predict that you will have no valid retort to this, but you will simply go on claiming that evolution cannot be falsified.
Why is he having so much trouble comprehending the fact there is no such thing as scientific proof and science doesn't prove things? Does he think this is a gag we're all in on and when he finally accepts that fact we're going to shout, Gotcha!"?Too bad you cannot prove it, you admit it, I admit it, yet you go on. Didn't I already cover the fact this was useless. I'm sure I went out of my way make it as clear as I possibly could.
yep. this is why creation is a better explanation. actually its the only scientific explanation since we can test it.
Why is he having so much trouble comprehending the fact there is no such thing as scientific proof and science doesn't prove things?
ok. lets take your example of this prediction. first: in many cases we find fossils in the wrong place. for instance i already gave here this example:
Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes)
"Tikiguania would have been evidence for an anomalously early (i.e. Triassic) age for what molecular studies suggest is a highly derived squamate clade (Acrodonta), implying that all major clades of squamates such as iguanians, anguimorphs, snakes, scincomorphs and gekkotans had diverged in the Triassic"
as you can see: evolution doesn't predict this fossils since its not fit well with molecular studies. so your example of evolutionary prediction is incorrect.
as you can see above: we indeed find "out of place" fossils. and they just call it "anomaly". so this test is incorrect too.
see above. lets see if you can deal with that before we will move on.
Tikiguania is almost indistinguishable from living agamids; a combined phylogenetic analysis of morphological and molecular data places it with draconines, a prominent component of the modern Asian herpetofauna. It is unlikely that living agamids have retained the Tikiguania morphotype unchanged for over 216 Myr; it is much more conceivable that Tikiguania is a Quaternary or Late Tertiary agamid that was preserved in sediments derived from the Triassic beds that have a broad superficial exposure. This removes the only fossil evidence for lizards in the Triassic.
It is extremely unlikely that
Tikiguania is an advanced agamid from the Triassic, and that the draconine jaw ‘morphotype’ has persisted largely unchanged for 216 Myr. Tikiguania came from a depth of 1.5 m within the Tiki Formation mudstone layers. As the specimen was screen washed from a load of five tonnes of excavated material, more precise depositional relationships are unknown. It shares with all of the fossil bones from this deposit a thin coating of haematite and calcite cementation, consistent with the specimen being interred in these sediments for some time, rather than a modern specimen or a reworked fossil [23]. However, a Triassic age for Tikiguaniadoes not necessarily follow. Erosion or fissuring into the Tiki Formation at any time during the Neogene or Quaternary would have allowed more recent faunal remains to have been incorporated into the Triassic mudstones, long enough to develop the characteristic chemical patina.
Recognizing
Tikiguania as essentially modern removes any potential need to assume early diversification and long ghost lineages for all major squamate clades.
So much pain over the fact that the academic definition of the word "proof" is different that the colloquial definition. So. Much. Pain. How many debates have to be derailed by this before people stop using the word "proof" altogether?Why do evolutionists have so much trouble comprehending just because you all claim this convenient way out as fact, anyone with half a brain knows science DOES prove things, and what you are claiming is far from fact. It's as laughable as your evolution actually.
Why do evolutionists have so much trouble comprehending just because you all claim this convenient way out as fact, anyone with half a brain knows science DOES prove things, and what you are claiming is far from fact. It's as laughable as your evolution actually.
From what I’ve seen is that creationists misuse fossils like this to try to discredit geological layering . The fact that they can’t tell that these are just moved around speaks volumes to the level of ignorance or just incompetence. A fossil like this will have vestiges of the old sediment around it and also other evidence of having been moved. This isn’t even my field and I knew this.From your link - http://www.rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/01/24/rsbl.2011.1216.full
From the abstract:
From the 'Discussion' section:
The last sentence of the paper:
What this paper appears to be saying is that Tikiguania is probably not a Triassic fossil lizard but a fossil of a Quaternary or Late Tertiary lizard that was accidentally incorporated in fissured or eroded Triassic sedimentary rocks; in other words, it is not an "out of place" fossil.
So much pain over the fact that the academic definition of the word "proof" is different that the colloquial definition. So. Much. Pain. How many debates have to be derailed by this before people stop using the word "proof" altogether?
How much evidence, and what sort of evidence, would you need in order for you to accept it as proof of the reality of evolution?
again: 95% of your commet is about me rather then about the evidence. so i will give you evidence against your claim. since we can find nested hierarchy among designed objects (image below)the fact that we can find the same hierarchy in nature doesnt prove evolution. very simple.
View attachment 226138
And I've commented on that several times, so prove evolution or do not prove it and blame it on the fact it can't be proven and run a long.
Let me try to make this clearer. It appears to me you're saying it cannot be proven because science doesn't prove, and though I disagree what science does, it makes no difference what I or you think of that, I still expect proof, and I will never sit here and let you tell me I should not expect proof...never. What's more you really should know all that by now.
How many times do I have to repeat that. So, since I'm certain no one here is going to just concede and take responsibility for the fact they cannot prove it, FOR WHATEVER REASON, provable, not provable, you have an excuse or you don't have an excuse, none of that matters, I still expect proof, so it would seem to me we aren't going to get anywhere, or do you really think continuing to spout science proves nothing is going to make me not expect proof? You should know by now it will not, so what's wrong with you all,. let it go, for whatever the reason you cannot proof it. You basically admit that with your rules of science, so what are you doing?
So, for the umpteenth time, prove it or don't. Do you understand?
You should be clear by now on what I'm after so with that in mind, instead of the cop out, put the blame on others, state your case, and then you can also make your case where I get dishonest.
Can you do that or are you just talking?
Just about everybody here has been explaining to you, at length, at how in science, theories are never proven.
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?