Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
That is imaginary based, not observable.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New 'on-line museum' challenges evolution
- Thread starter Noaidi
- Start date
That is imaginary based, not observable.
Are you saying everything that we cannot observe is imaginary? And evolution is observable, genetic change over time happens, it's observable.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That's entirely incorrect. In what way is evolution not observable?
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Genetic change over time is observable, but common descent is not.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Common descent isn't observable.
Wrong again. common ancestry is not only confirmed by the fossil record, but it's also confirmed by dna and genetics.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The theory of evolution does not rest or fall on the idea of common descent.
Common descent is the logical conclusion of what we can observe in nature.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Adam and Eve is common ancestry.... MoF
wa:do
wa:do
T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
Mr Spinkles
Mr
The observations of genetic change over time provide some of the best evidence for common descent. Francis Collins is a committed Christian, a scientist, and former head of the human genome project, and he explains the incontrovertible evidence of common descent in genetic observations in many of his works, including 'The Language of God' (2006).
In addition, you may want to close your eyes lest you accidentally observe even more unobservable evidence of common descent:
Here's a fun science problem (40 points): (1) (a) identify the modern human skull; (b) identify the modern chimpanzee skull; (c) put the fossils in chronological order according to the geological record; finally, (d) explain the magical appearance and sudden disappearance of the other hominid species in the fossil record, since we know they couldn't be related to each other.
Solution:
The modern human skull is at the end, labeled 'N'. The modern chimp skull is at the beginning, labeled 'A'. Except for the chimp skull, the fossils are already in chronological order from 'B' - 'N'. Since we know that common descent is imaginary, B could not have evolved into C, C into D, and so on until skull N. Otherwise, we would have to admit that humans (N) could have evolved from earlier ancestors (B) which share a common ancestor with chimps (A). To avoid this absurd conclusion, it follows that B must have magically appeared and then magically and suddenly disappeared, and their disappearance happened to coincide with the appearance of the separate species labeled by C. Then C disappeared and D magically appeared, and so on, until humans supernaturally came into existence when all the creatures labeled by M disappeared.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Ok, I have to say the part on Archy... they picked a couple of bombs for supporting papers.
The one on cardio-pulmonary function in theropods is simply dreadful. (using Osborn's 1916 figure of T.rex, only using one non-avian theropod: Allosaurus for comparison to a single bird, and so on)
According to their findings, Archy doesn't have air sacs either as it lacks many of the features they claim are necessary for them to function.
The other paper by Feduccia has been widely refuted. Not to mention outright disproved by more recent findings.
They could have done a much better job IMHO. I'm also disappointed they bring up Heckel who hasn't been in a science text book (except as a history lesson) for nearly a half a century.
wa:do
The one on cardio-pulmonary function in theropods is simply dreadful. (using Osborn's 1916 figure of T.rex, only using one non-avian theropod: Allosaurus for comparison to a single bird, and so on)
According to their findings, Archy doesn't have air sacs either as it lacks many of the features they claim are necessary for them to function.
The other paper by Feduccia has been widely refuted. Not to mention outright disproved by more recent findings.
They could have done a much better job IMHO. I'm also disappointed they bring up Heckel who hasn't been in a science text book (except as a history lesson) for nearly a half a century.
wa:do
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Something's definitely challenged here, but it isn't evolution.
linwood
Well-Known Member
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That's good to know.
[youtube]vg4kfvo_H4o[/youtube]
YouTube - Brian Kane, New Work, iPad Art, NYC May 2010 (HD)
David M
Well-Known Member
Probably a good idea, its the same old lies being regurgitated to brainwash the credulous.
Noaidi
slow walker
Exactly. Most of the references used on the site are dated. Your average joe may not look at these and see the flaw in terms of the validity of the information presented.
Any views on this, Man of Faith? Do you think the info is reliable?
Noaidi
slow walker
I agree entirely. If we based our current teaching solely on what Darwin said, we wouldn't get very far. No Mendelian genetics, molecular clocks...
There isn't really such a thing as 'Darwinian evolution'. Darwin was the guy who got the ball rolling. The subject has progressed enormously over the past 150 years.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Cool, at least Airplay finally works.