Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Kenny'sID]

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.

Yeah man, you know I'm out there doing just that...feel vindicated now? Or was it just the last word you wanted?

 

[xianghua]

A belief and an assumption...what the whole thing is based on.

yep. this is why creation is a better explanation. actually its the only scientific explanation since we can test it.

 

[VirOptimus]

yep. this is why creation is a better explanation. actually its the only scientific explanation since we can test it.

How do we test creation?

 

[xianghua]

the time when various common ancestors would have lived, that we can then search for (and find!) in rocks as fossils

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 doesnt predict this fossils since its not fit well with molecular studies. so your example of evolutionery prediction is incorrect.

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.

as you can see above: we indeed find "out of place" fossils. and they just call it "anomaly". so this test is incorrect too.

Note: I predict that you will have no valid retort to this, but you will simply go on claiming that evolution cannot be falsified.

see above. lets see if you can deal with that before we will move on.

 

[USincognito]

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.

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!"?

 

[Kenny'sID]

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?

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.

Pretend all day long if you like, and though you all would be much more comfortable if some would just buy your nonsense without question, you're just going to have to settle with the fact, that isn't going to happen.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

From your link - http://www.rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/01/24/rsbl.2011.1216.full

From the abstract:

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.

From the 'Discussion' section:

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.

The last sentence of the paper:

Recognizing

Tikiguania as essentially modern removes any potential need to assume early diversification and long ghost lineages for all major squamate clades.

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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

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?

 

[Astrophile]

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.

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?

 

[Brightmoon]

I never knew that people still believed in the physical tenets of creationism until about 20 years ago . I was aware that humans belonged in Animalia simply because we’re mammals and vertebrates. I figured that out when I was 8.

 

[Brightmoon]

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.

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.

 

[Brightmoon]

The evidence that I find most compelling is that the fossil will be subjected to mild metamorphism which shows as the fossil, crystals or minerals being stretched . If the fossil is moved into another geological layer this will also be out of place in the new layer. That will show up under a microscope and cannot be faked.I did say that creation science geologists were incompetents

 

[Kenny'sID]

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?

You mean by asking for proof of evoplution?

First, what do you mean by derail? Someone saying something you disagree with? That on certain things we should just keep our mouth shut so we don't offend Sarah or others who make what we feel are bogus claims, no matter who believes them and be guilty of her definition of derailing?

And know this,before you answer that last question, you too have to abide but the "shut your mouth on that" rule if you're going to stand behind it, and if you do that, you'll probably need to get off of any debate forum altogether, sigh up for Netflix and stay completely away from debates.

Secondly, go ahead and show me an example of where I derailed a thread by asking for proof? Please.

How bout "God created the universe, and everything just as it is, and by my definition of "proof", proof is not needed, you should just believe it, no argument, or not, end of story, no debate necessary". How does that sit with you?

 

[Kenny'sID]

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?

I'll let you know when we get there. Are you seriously asking me to put a measurement on an amount evidence? Do you have the formula for measuring evidence? Please don't make me get into a court of law example for you.

Not too much and not too little, just enough, and just the sort that convinces me. Whatcha' got?

Oh, and you can start by not trying to tell me I shouldn't expect proof, that is if you want me to take you seriously.

 

[Brightmoon]

Proof is for printing, math, and alcohol . In science you have evidence for something or evidence that refutes something . Where is your verifiable evidence for any version of creation ? This is the big difference between science and religion. Archaeopteryx is evidence for theropod to bird evolution. What evidence would you come up with that would be a refutation of that fact ? Remember that dinosaurs also had feathers, air sacs filled bones, and beaks ; birds have claws and scales

 

[Kenny'sID]

Build a better mouse trap, and they'll beat a path to your door. Convince someone no proof is necessary, nor should it be expected, and they'll believe anything you say, including, you have built a better mouse trap, whether you have or not.

One could even get away with something as silly as evolution. Or even something like a big bang from nowhere and then a whole lot of intricuit things make themselves by accident, things so complicated we barely scratch the surface in out understanding of them.

Wonder who the first was to reason out the no proof in science thing? I'd just like to see what they look like.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

That silly graph is made up by you out of thin air. It has been exposed as the nonsense that it is more times then I can count on this forum alone.

Unlike actual phylogenetic trees which show the nested hierarchies in living things, which are the result of decades of rigorous testing, mapping, comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, genome sequencing, etc by thousands of scientists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

I can only repeat myself...

In science, theories are never proven.

That goes for all theories, not just evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

Showing that you are dishonest, is fairly easy.

Just about everybody here has been explaining to you, at length, at how in science, theories are never proven.

Yet, there you are, months later, still demanding us "to prove" evolution theory.

 

[inquiring mind]

Just about everybody here has been explaining to you, at length, at how in science, theories are never proven.

A theory is defined as “a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree,” which in a sense includes both creation and evolution. This is broad I know, but why then should evolution be considered any more scientific (“1 the state or fact of knowledge; 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied”), or well-thought-out within the context of definition 2 (since you would think 1 means only proven), than creation then?