|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total) |
| |
Michaeladams | |
Total: 918,965 Year: 6,222/9,624 Month: 70/240 Week: 13/72 Day: 13/9 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1597 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Since publishing his book, The origin of species, there have been new discoveries. Advanced life forms from the Cambrian era were discovered all around the world. However the findings only served to refute Darwin’s theory as there was no evolutionary species found for the Cambrian animals. quote: quote: Full paper follows giving details and references Your thesis is refuted by the evidence of (a) precambrian fossils that have been found, and (b) the cambrian "explosion" occurred over millions of years and is characterized by the evolution of hard parts that fossilze easily.
Similar situations also occur throughout time including the period after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. This is where many modern animals, including primates, appear without any evolutionary evidence. This too is false.
quote: More at THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIES LINK including the evolution of the mammal ear ("... reptiles, as we have noted, have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw, and mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. On the other hand, the jaw joints in the reptile are formed from different bones than they are in the mammalian skull. ..."). The evolution of mammals was well underway before 65 million years ago. We talked about the evolution of primates before in Message 109 of thread True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing -- which was in response to Message 89 (which you edited to delete information, however I had a pre-edit version that I posted in Message 106). Note on symbols used: └─┬─A A and B are sister clades with a common ancestor, and an equivalent cladogram would be └─┬─B while └─A shows A is a parent clade and B is a daughter (nested) clade
quote: (Note this site is interactive and you can move up and down the cladograms.) Also see the Primate Cladogram I developed to flesh out the bushiness of evolution since out last discussion and reduce the apparent linear evolution by filling some branches from Primates to Humans. That's two falsified assertions you made in your post. One you were corrected on earlier, but left the discussion when you got disturbed by the responses. Not learning from past mistakes is a sign of someone with very strong beliefs that their knowledge is correct, and who are unwilling to adapt their learning when they are shown what they believe is wrong. This is not skepticism, it is denial. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1597 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What on earth is 'the naturalistic theory'? It's 'darwinism' for people that don't want to be labeled creationist, but post creationist arguments. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1597 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I tried to call ToE something else as not to provoke irrational conclusions about my beliefs and motives which instantly renders ToE false in my eyes. ... A ploy that failed evidently. What you need to do is be honest and say the Theory of Evolution (ToE), and then be sure you have the scientific ToE and not some scurvy Creationist dishonest version.
Are we allowed to copy and paste large sections of text like RAZD has? ... Yes, particularly of previous posts or posts on other threads that discussed the matter, and it was ignored, Yes if they are properly referenced and credited, and you then put your comments in your words ...
Message 20: Last time I was asked for references only for them to be rejected. ... Not because you cited them but because the references themselves were trash and not good references for the science you seem to be applying them to. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1597 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So far only defensive tactics and false accusations to avoid explaining the evidence of the missing fossils. Like picking petty reasons to disregard posts with information that does explain "the evidence of the missing fossil ... " because they are not missing -- many have been found.
Message 4 gave you both an explanation of fossils before and during the cambrian period (including soft part fossils that existed before the hard parts evolved during the cambrian). AND an explanation of pre-65 million years ago (pre-dinosaur species extinction event) evolution path to primates. Saying I haven't provided this information is not debate, it is denial. Or cognitive dissonance ...
I've stated my position and belief in the past so be my guest, repeat your mistakes from a year ago. And you've learned nothing in the absence regarding your erroneous understanding, or about humbleness.
And to people that are incapable of using internet this is the definition of naturalism. "Naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world" We wanted your definition, and the onus is on you to define the terminology you use so that we talk at the same level of understanding.
... Perhaps start there if you've never heard anyone express this skepticism. (doubtful) Oh, we've heard it ... ad nauseum, but it's pseudo-science fantasy, not actual science. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is written to fool the gullible wanna believers. It either lies or passes on lies without compunction. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1597 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So, you answered that what you mean with "the naturalist theory" is basically the ToE. From Wiki: Except that he specifically and explicitly adds godless and belief
Porkncheese writes: Message 25: "Naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world" Whereas the ToE has no belief component, it is based on facts, observations, and conclusions from those facts and observations. If there is a belief component it would be that the possibility of contradictory evidence could exist, which would be exciting to find and then incorporated or develop a new theory. Nor is the ToE implicitly or explicitly godless, it's just that science in general is no capable of using and testing supernatural laws and forces. Only their physically measurable and observable effect/s on the natural world, and thus be seen as the natural laws and forces operating on the universe, if that. So, as I see it, when he says in the OP: "The Cambrian explosion of life has long been a major hurdle for the naturalistic theory. ... " he is implying that the absence of godliness is the problem -- IE god-of-the-gaps-did-it -- that the ToE is not sufficient. I've talked to him (and other creationists) before about science being agnostic rather than atheistic, but they don't seem to get it. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1597 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So, porkncheese lied about the basics in his/her first sentence. Just another creationist. They always tell untruths. Always. Without exception. Except one that get's angry at being called one. See discussion on True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing, put on "porkncheese only posts" Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024