Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[rusra02]

is this a blatant LIE ???


You are all POE dude and have ZERO cedibility

No, it's not a blatant lie. Scientists have made these comments.

POE? Sorry, I'm not familiar with that acronym.

 

[outhouse]

Scientists have made these comments.

No

not real scientist respected among their peers, and you know this we have showed you the information many times already

repeating a LIE is still a LIE is it not????

 

[Krok]

No, it's not a blatant lie. Scientists have made these comments.

POE? Sorry, I'm not familiar with that acronym.

Francis Hitching a scientist? Creationists can never tell the truth. They always have to lie.:yes:

 

[painted wolf]

Nothing to see here folks... just move along.

wa:do

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Tastes like chicken

 

[johnhanks]

Changes within a species, such as sea urchins, don't prove evolution. It simply proves that God created plants and animals with potential for great variety within a group. Dogs, for example. Sea Urchins, for another example. Variation does not prove evolution.

So let me just check I've got you straight here.

• 'Little change' over time means evolution is wrong, creation is right.
• 'Big change' over time means evolution is wrong, creation is right.

So tell me, what observation would be needed for the opposite to be true?

"When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there." -Francis Hitching.

There are numerous possible responses to this. I'll make do with two:
Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials.
Tiktaalik.

That gets back to the need for a standard definition for "evolution". If you consider "evolution" to mean change, that is not how I understand the word. I think you know how I am using the term, and it is not to describe changes within a species.
But just for the record, my definition of evolution is:
"Evolution" teaches that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men.

It is not part of the definition of evolution - which whether you like it or not encompasses changes within as well as between species - that the changes must be small and gradual. Variations in, for example, homeobox genes can lead to large and sudden phenotypic changes. Either way, it is for you to explain what barrier prevents a fish genome from changing over very many generations into an amphibian genome. No such barrier is detectable by science: where does your theology locate it?

 

[Nichole_R]

It could go two ways: First, people would acknowledge the divine theory. Second, there will be another theory to challenge the divine theory.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It could go two ways: First, people would acknowledge the divine theory. Second, there will be another theory to challenge the divine theory.

False dichotomy

 

[McBell]

It could go two ways: First, people would acknowledge the divine theory. Second, there will be another theory to challenge the divine theory.

What is this "divine theory" you speak of?

 

[outhouse]

It could go two ways: First, people would acknowledge the divine theory. Second, there will be another theory to challenge the divine theory.

Well lets look at this closely

First,,,,,, your divine imagination is outlawed from public schools so we dont poison our childrens minds anymore

Second,,,,,Evolution is taught as higher learning in every major university around the world.


Third,,, divine is not a theory, its only a guess

 

[painted wolf]

My guess is that Nichole_R is referencing the OP.

* the "divine theory" would be creationism. And I think the second option would be the most likely... another theory would be developed to challenge creationism, because creationism has no explanatory power.

wa:do

 

[shawn001]

When and how the dinosaurs perished is not discussed in the Bible.
Your date of 125 million years is based on what? And yes, God created flowers.
"Darwins theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. [I wonder where they got that idea?] Unfortunately, this is not strictly true...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution." Chicago field museum of natural history, vol 50, no.1,pp.22,23.

You crack me up Rusra.


U of Chicago

Since making headlines two years ago with a surprising 375-million-year-old fossil, the evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin continues to unlock the secrets of life’s formerly blurry transition from sea to land.
The electrifying discovery of Tiktaalik roseae in the Canadian Arctic in 2004 gave Neil Shubin the evidence he had relentlessly pursued for two decades. This fossil, which revealed an amphibious creature with the gills and scales of a fish but the neck, shoulders, arms and fingers of a land-living animal, was hailed as a proverbial missing link in evolution


Neil Shubin: Tracing fins to limbs | The University of Chicago

 

[rusra02]

Francis Hitching a scientist? Creationists can never tell the truth. They always have to lie.:yes:

I didn't reference just Francis Hitching. The quotes made were from several scientific sources. But you knew that, didn't you? Just another example of 'scientific' honesty on the part of evolutionists.

 

[rusra02]

You crack me up Rusra.


U of Chicago

Since making headlines two years ago with a surprising 375-million-year-old fossil, the evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin continues to unlock the secrets of life’s formerly blurry transition from sea to land.
The electrifying discovery of Tiktaalik roseae in the Canadian Arctic in 2004 gave Neil Shubin the evidence he had relentlessly pursued for two decades. This fossil, which revealed an amphibious creature with the gills and scales of a fish but the neck, shoulders, arms and fingers of a land-living animal, was hailed as a proverbial missing link in evolution


Neil Shubin: Tracing fins to limbs | The University of Chicago

Any you believe a fossil of a now extinct fish proves evolution? That's your proof?
It's amazing that after the initial exposion of media attention, before anyone can really examine the evidence closely, this fossil or that has been hailed as THE missing link. It's all nonsense, of course.

 

[johnhanks]

Any you believe a fossil of a now extinct fish proves evolution? That's your proof?
It's amazing that after the initial exposion of media attention, before anyone can really examine the evidence closely, this fossil or that has been hailed as THE missing link. It's all nonsense, of course.

To dismiss Tiktaalik's transitional status as 'nonsense' with such instant confidence indicates that you must have made a close study of its anatomy, and of fish/tetrapod features in general. Do, please, share your expertise and explain to us exactly why the conclusions of professional palaeontologists concerning Tiktaalik are nonsense. And be specific, now - we want the full low-down.

 

[painted wolf]

To dismiss Tiktaalik's transitional status as 'nonsense' with such instant confidence indicates that you must have made a close study of its anatomy, and of fish/tetrapod features in general. Do, please, share your expertise and explain to us exactly why the conclusions of professional palaeontologists concerning Tiktaalik are nonsense. And be specific, now - we want the full low-down.

God doesn't mention it in his autobiography.

Therefore it can't possibly be real. Someone probably faked all 11 of them and then pretended to publish all those scientific papers on it. They certainly hide it well by displaying it (or casts of it) publicly in several museums world wide. (UCMP, Field museum, AMNH, Smithsonian and on and on) No one is allowed to look at it for themselves... unless you want to enter one of those ungodly museums. And we all know that good Christians only go to Ken Ham's theme-parks... I mean museums.

Besides, lots of fish have elbows... ho hum.

wa:do

 

[Agnostic75]

Any you believe a fossil of a now extinct fish proves evolution? That's your proof? It's amazing that after the initial exposion of media attention, before anyone can really examine the evidence closely, this fossil or that has been hailed as THE missing link. It's all nonsense, of course.

In order to adequately discredit creationism, all that is necessary is to find a major problem with creationism, the global flood theory, or the young earth theory. One of the easiest, simplest ways to discredit the global flood theory, a way that even science novices can understand, involves the law of gravity. According to the law of gravity, if a global flood occurred, lighter fossils and sediments would have to be sorted on top of heavier fossils and sediments. What do we find in the world today? Well, we find a number of examples where heavier fossils and sediments are sorted on top of lighter fossils and sediments, thereby adequately refuting the global flood theory. It is elementary science, my dear Watson. The only options for creationists is to claim that during the global flood, God temporarily changed the law of gravity. Believe it or not, some Christians have claimed that that is what happened. That is an example of the inerrantist Theory of Convenience, meaning using science only as a convenience when it agrees with the Bible. That is intellectually dishonest, and it makes a mockery out of science.,

Unless you can adequately refute in detail Dr. Ken Miller's writings and lectures on the evolution of the flagellum, you do not have a reasonable case to make against evolution. Miller has an article about the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun, and a video at Ken Miller talks about the bacterial flagellum - YouTube.

 

[Krok]

I didn't reference just Francis Hitching. The quotes made were from several scientific sources. But you knew that, didn't you? Just another example of 'scientific' honesty on the part of evolutionists.

Luckily normal people are not as stupid as you think they are. Normal people can read, unlike the kids in your Sunday or Sabbath School class (whichever is appropriate).
In the first paragraph in post number 260, http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2707846-post260.html, you stated the following:

…….. "When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there." -Francis Hitching.

In post 261, http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2707872-post261.html

No, it’s not a blatant lie. Scientists have made these comments.

You lied. Francis Hitching was not a scientist.

 

[fantome profane]

It may very well be. But it isn't a new "kind".

I know we all (or most of us) are familiar with the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
wiki

No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

But I think this nonsense has been repeated often enough and been around long enough it should officially be categorised as it’s own fallacy.

The “no new kind” fallacy.

The “no new kind” fallacy is an attempt to retain an unreasoned creationist assertion. When faced with counter examples to the creationist claim, rather than denying the counter example or rejecting the creationist claim of immutable kinds, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case by rhetoric, without reference to any objective definition of “kind”


Creationist: No new kind has ever come into being since the first creation.
Reaonable Person: But what about all of these examples of new species evolving, with new forms and new traits that never existed before?
Creationist: Well, Those are not new “Kinds”.
Reasonable Person: Why? How do you know?
Creationist: Because no new kind has ever come into being since the first creation.

 

[camanintx]

Any you believe a fossil of a now extinct fish proves evolution? That's your proof?
It's amazing that after the initial exposion of media attention, before anyone can really examine the evidence closely, this fossil or that has been hailed as THE missing link. It's all nonsense, of course.

We don't need fossils to prove evolution because it has been directly observed by scientists over and over. You still haven't told us how many times anyone has observed creation.