The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[Man of Faith]

Hey, MoF, like my avatar?

LOL It's nice but I have something that will destroy it. I am going to destroy the unobservable tree of life with something that looks like what we do observe, an Orchard.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

We don't observe trees, but we observe orchards... hmmmmm..... And we don't observe steps but we do see stairs, right?
You know that there are vast areas on the planet thought to be only one organism?Like this forest in which all the trees are exactly genetically identical and connected by a complicated root system.

And then there's the coral reef looks kinda tree-like.

So maybe from your view it looks like an orchard is because you don't allow yourself to see the connections below. The "trunk" of the "tree of life." :slap:

 

[OmarKhayyam]

LOL It's nice but I have something that will destroy it. I am going to destroy the unobservable tree of life with something that looks like what we do observe, an Orchard.

The same way you "destroyed" radiometric dating?

 

[Alceste]

LOL It's nice but I have something that will destroy it. I am going to destroy the unobservable tree of life with something that looks like what we do observe, an Orchard.

I have to ask - are you a teenager? This "Grade 8 science" thing has been bugging me. Did you drop out in Grade 8, or are you still in Grade 8?

 

[Man of Faith]

I have to ask - are you a teenager? This "Grade 8 science" thing has been bugging me. Did you drop out in Grade 8, or are you still in Grade 8?

No, I am 49 years old. The 8th grade comment is because that's probably where my science knowledge level is, I'm not sure. My continuance education was in electronics and radar. Now that I think about it, it could be at the 3rd grade level.

 

[themadhair]

My continuance education was in electronics and radar.

Isn’t electronics underpinned by semi-conductor theory which is in turn underpinned by atomic theory? This would be the same atomic theory you spit on when you try to challenge radiometric dating.

 

[richardlowellt]

No, I am 49 years old. The 8th grade comment is because that's probably where my science knowledge level is

You actually didn't have to admit to that we can pretty much surmise that just by reading your post, but nice of you to admit your lack of scientific knowledge. It might be a real good idea to not involve yourself in discussions about which you know nothing about, just a suggestion.

 

[Man of Faith]

You actually didn't have to admit to that we can pretty much surmise that just by reading your post, but nice of you to admit your lack of scientific knowledge. It might be a real good idea to not involve yourself in discussions about which you know nothing about, just a suggestion.

Well I can always tweet my sources.

 

[Man of Faith]

Isn’t electronics underpinned by semi-conductor theory which is in turn underpinned by atomic theory? This would be the same atomic theory you spit on when you try to challenge radiometric dating.

Like I said, I don't challenge the mechanics of it and believe it to be accurate until someone tries to use it to date the earth.

 

[richardlowellt]

Well I can always tweet my sources.

I suppose you can, but only if you understand, scientifically, what that source tells you. Never a good idea to take something at face value unless you truly understand.

 

[richardlowellt]

Well I can always tweet my sources.

Many have tried to use creationists web sites to support their argument, but those who understand how science works can easily see how bogus the information on sites like this can be, so be careful of your sources.

 

[themadhair]

Like I said, I don't challenge the mechanics of it and believe it to be accurate until someone tries to use it to date the earth.

It is exactly this type of vacuous thinking and rationalisation that make creationism so cancerous to science.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

It is exactly this type of vacuous thinking and rationalisation that make creationism so cancerous to science.

Essentially this approach is, "I use and believe it works as long it doesn't produce results that conflict with my theology. When it does that it breaks down and produces garbage."

And this is said with a straight face w/o any sense of irony. Nor any embarrassment.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Like I said, I don't challenge the mechanics of it and believe it to be accurate until someone tries to use it to date the earth.

Well, I'm not going to knock you because you lack scientific knowledge. There are a lot of sciences I don't know...but the difference may be our willingness to learn them. I welcome science and its discoveries. But here's the thing about science.....What we do discover can be challenged and tested. For you, you may need to go and brush up on a particular area of science before you engage in a debate with people here who are far more familiar with the subject....Instead of debating you can ask the question and for refernces and they will be happy to point you in the direction where answers can be found.

 

[rojse]

I have yet to see the evidence for carbon-dating destroyed. No explosions, no earthquakes, tsunamis, asteroids, zombies, angels, demons, A-grade movie stars with a plan to save the day, or anything else that one might associate with large-scale destruction.

 

[darkendless]

Like I said, I don't challenge the mechanics of it and believe it to be accurate until someone tries to use it to date the earth.

Geology can date the earth and come up with an answer within 5% of evolution. Geology and evolution do not rely on the same forms of testing to come up with such answers.

 

[Autodidact]

LOL It's nice but I have something that will destroy it. I am going to destroy the unobservable tree of life with something that looks like what we do observe, an Orchard.

Thank you, MoF, that was the graphic I was looking for earlier. If you can find it bigger, that would be great.

So, yes, this is the diagram of the HoK: rather than one big tree, a lot of separate trees. Interestingly, this is NOT what we observe. Rather, every living thing has been logically, objectively, classified into a single nested hierarchy, or tree of life.

 

[Autodidact]

Like I said, I don't challenge the mechanics of it and believe it to be accurate until someone tries to use it to date the earth.

It works until you don't like the result? Dishonest much?

 

[Autodidact]

So, MoF, around how many of those trees are in your model? ToE has exactly 1. Around how many do you have?

If you don't know what a kind is, how do you know whether evolution is limited to one? In short, if you can't even formulate a hypothesis, how can you tell whether it's right or wrong?

 

[Gunfingers]

Thank you, MoF, that was the graphic I was looking for earlier. If you can find it bigger, that would be great.

So, yes, this is the diagram of the HoK: rather than one big tree, a lot of separate trees. Interestingly, this is NOT what we observe. Rather, every living thing has been logically, objectively, classified into a single nested hierarchy, or tree of life.

As Man of Faith is probably going to ignore you and i'm bored, i googled some.

Here's a larger version of his. I assume it's incomplete, as it only has a few "kinds" on it.

Here's another one i found. It doesn't have any information except the orchard picture, however.