|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The phrase "Evolution is a fact" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5625 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Hi Rrhain,
because the fossil record clearly shows that happening No it doesn’t -it shows masses of dead things buried in rock layers all over the world. What you make of it, is a matter of interpretation that accords with your philosophical preconceptions. Did it happen? Do you know it did? (Were you there? Was anybody there?) Or did it happen because it must have and you are personally sure that it must be possible based on your belief system. How about evidentially? Is it scientifically provable that the morphological mutations of the extent seen in the fossil record are even possible? How do you know that? Is this macro-evolution trick real or is it extrapolation based on imagination?
The fossil record is quite literally overflowing with transitionals Are you sure? Even Darwin knew that wasn’t true but he thought that with time, some convincing transitionals might be found.It worried him and he said:“why do we not see everywhere innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” He said that this problem ”pressed hardly’ on his theory. Then there’s Stephen Jay Gould who said that the history of most fossil species includes two features most inconsistent with gradualism -1. Stasis -they appear looking pretty much the same as when they disappear with morphological change being limited and directionless 2. Sudden appearance - everything appears all at once and ”fully formed.’ So you see Darwinist evolution pretty much always happens in such a manner as to escape detection. If you find the handful of so-called ”intermediates’ convincing then you have more faith than I do. At some point we need more than ingenious excuses to fill the gaps. As Phillip Johnson put it in his book ”Darwin on Trial’ -the discontinuities between the major groups are not only pervasive, but in many cases immense.
.We can literally watch the bones of the reptilian jaw move and repurpose to become the bones of the mammalian jaw. Well you can certainly imagine that that happened but is it true? What about evidence to show that it is possible? All mutations ever seem to be able to do (demonstrably) is cause a defect in or a loss of information. You know, like typing errors.
We can see hydracotherium change over time to become modern Equus. Can we? Even now we have varieties of horses of different sizes. Sticking an hydracotherium at the beginning of the line up is based on a belief that it must have happened, not on proof that it is possible.
You seem to be on the verge of demanding a full geneology of every single organism complete with videotape of every single act of reproduction before you would accept what evolution says. That would be nice but I’d be prepared to accept some positive examples of information building in organisms that goes beyond such things as antibiotic resistance and bacteria being able to adapt to a nylon diet.
You want ostriches from alligator eggs. Evolution doesn’t allow for that. Well, even evolutionists have limits as to how far their imaginations can stretch. That is a good thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5625 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Beretta writes: Bacteria, given more than enough generations of laboratory testing and mutating, are never anything but bacteria Could you show us your working on this? Because it sounds like complete nonsense. I'd like to attach an article about what is possible given vast generations of bacterial reproduction and testing but I know not how -care to fill me in and I will direct you to it.
Are you saying that the change from prokaryote to eukaryote took less than a century? I'd be fascinated to know how you came by this knowledge. No I'm saying that there is no experimental evidence to back the contention that prokaryotes changed into eukaryotes at all.
If not then just what are you trying to say? I'm trying to say that I don't have the faith of an evolutionist and that I'd like more proof and less assumptions based on a philisophical belief system that all evolutionists appear to have in common. Of course this creation story of modern atheism is all pervasive in the system so I'm not surprised that you believe it -unfortunately I am somewhat harder to convince.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5625 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Hi CFO
The phrase "Evolution is a fact" is interesting to me, semantically. My question for discussion is whether this is a scientifically justifiable statement. If you are an evolutionist----yes. If you are a creationist----no. Well I don't know if you could call it scientifically justifiable any which way - an immensely improbable story based on interpretations and imaginations minus any direct evidence yes.You sure do seem to pop up and get booted out regularly for your unpopular but somewhat amusing contributions, Ray. I can never quite work out the offence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Of course this creation story of modern atheism is all pervasive in the system so I'm not surprised that you believe it -unfortunately I am somewhat harder to convince. What does atheism Have to do with evolution? Atheism is a belief that no deity exists. Evolution is a scientific study on changes and modifications of living things over time. Where is the connection? There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Beretta writes: Rrhain writes: because the fossil record clearly shows that happening No it doesn’t -it shows masses of dead things buried in rock layers all over the world. If the fossil record were really just an amorphous pile of dead things then you're right that it couldn't tell us much with any certainty, but the fossil record isn't an amorphous pile of dead things. It is a record of increasingly different forms with increasing depth and time. It is a record of change over time. That lifeforms have changed over time is a fact. The word that means lifeforms changing over time is evolution, and so it is correct to state that it is a fact that evolution has occurred. What is the explanation for this fact? Did an intelligent designer intervene innumerable and countless times? Is imperfect reproduction combined with selection responsible? Something else? That's a discussion for another thread, but that lifeforms have changed over time, that evolution has occurred, is a fact. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5625 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
It is a record of increasingly different forms with increasing depth and time. But the diversity appears fully formed in too short a time for so many morphological mutations to have occurred -even given millions of years were that true.From so long a period of single celled organisms to extraordinary complexity and variation of forms in so short a relative period in the Cambrian. To fill the gaps in with transitional forms is a philisophical choice not a fact clearly arrived at by the evidence.
That lifeforms have changed over time is a fact. The word that means lifeforms changing over time is evolution, and so it is correct to state that it is a fact that evolution has occurred. No one doubts that there has been change over time -just the limits of the possible changes and the time required to effect such changes were it possible at all. The evidence that it is even possible is missing.Study of mutations has failed to show any increase in information with mutations. On the contrary, mutations produce increasing disorder and a loss of information. The train is going in the wrong direction and that is according to the information that we do have from experimental investigation of mutational changes over time. 'Evolution' is unfortunately a very slippery term that can be used to describe the most innocuous changes and once you agree that evolution has happened, the big supposed changes get thrown in on top.
Did an intelligent designer intervene innumerable and countless times? OFF TOPIC MATERIAL HIDDEN.
Well that is an interesting question but is time even relevant -radiometric dating is based on too many assumptions and since it clearly does not work when used on rocks of known dates, why should it be accepted as a base for unknown dates? The problem with evolutionary thought is that they don't date rocks of known date because they know how old those rocks are. Only creationists bother to check against known dates to see whether a technique based on so many assumptions can be trusted at all. Edited by AdminNosy, : topic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Gish would be proud of you, my boy. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
OFF TOPIC MATERIAL HIDDEN.
Well that is an interesting question but is time even relevant -radiometric dating is based on too many assumptions and since it clearly does not work when used on rocks of known dates, why should it be accepted as a base for unknown dates? evidence please. that is scientific evidence and not from a creo website. Edited by AdminNosy, : topic There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Beretta,
The topic is not, "Is the theory of evolution a fact?" The topic is, "Is the phrase 'evolution is a fact' a scientifically justifiable statement?" (read the OP, Message 1) Since biological evolution is just change over time, and since the fossil record undeniably indicates change over time, the phrase "evolution is a fact" is a scientifically justifiable statement. If you want to discuss the merits or lack thereof of the theory of evolution as an explanation for the fact of evolution, find another thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Beretta doesn't need any help going off-topic.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Synik Junior Member (Idle past 5336 days) Posts: 5 From: Connecticut, USA Joined: |
quote: This is an ignorant comment. The truth about radiometric dating: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html "...Only creationists bother to check against known dates ..." LOL...Yeah all those Creation Scientists!....I'm sorry what research have then done? What discoveries have they made? What conributions, other than providing barrels of laughter, have they made in the world of science? OFF TOPIC MATERIAL HIDDEN. Edited by Synik, : No reason given. Edited by Synik, : No reason given. Edited by AdminNosy, : topic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Welcome aboard Synik.
You're new here. One thing you should note is that we strive to keep threads on a reasonably focused topic. Percy warned that dating is not on topic in this thread. We do not delete content here (well spam we do) but I am going to hide your comment and the other dating comments here. You can use the "peek" button at the lower right of the post to see the content when it is hidden.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Synik Junior Member (Idle past 5336 days) Posts: 5 From: Connecticut, USA Joined: |
Thanks!...and no worries. I was just responding to Berettas misunderstanding of radiometric dating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5625 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Beretta, I can't find a good reference for changing alligators into ostriches, but would changing one species of bacteria into another impress you? Sorry Fosdick - bacteria can change and adapt to environmental pressure -nobody doubts that. The question is, given enough time and the correct selective pressures, can they change into something like a human being or even into anything but a bacteria? You see it seems they have a genetic code that programs them to be a bacteria and allows for adaptation for survival but not conversion into something fundamentally different that would not be called a bacteria. I think bacteria have had enough generations in the labs to change into at least something different that would not so obviously be called a bacteria but sadly they have failed leaving evolution in a quandry that evolutionists appear to ignore while they contrive all sorts of excuses for why something substantial can't seem to happen.
This has been done artificially in Craig Venter's lab Aaah -intelligent design no less! I wonder how those scientists feel about the possibility that DNA could have fallen together by chance and chemical law. Random mutation could not be a factor in starting life because you have to have the self reproducing cell before NS can start to work.The reality of the problem becomes far starker the closer you get.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5625 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
The topic is, "Is the phrase 'evolution is a fact' a scientifically justifiable statement?" Frankly Percy, I think it can only be decided upon once the proper definitions are given. Are you talking about macro or micro evolution? Does the one extrapolate into the other or is that just assumed? Without proof that the one can extrapolate into the other, I think it's a deception. Agree to the micro sector and the macro unproven suppositions get thrown in on top. [Evolutionist to unwary citizen]"So you agree that there is change over time? Uhh yes, there is... - Well there you go -(ding) -you have just admitted that it is possible for microbes to turn into men -too late!!! Evolution is true, it's a fact!" There has to be a clear division and specification about what is meant by evolution -if it is not specified, it cannot be said to be true or false.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024