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

[tumbleweed41]

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.

Man of Faiths claim:


The created kinds are distinct; evolution between them is impossible.

Facts:

1. Creationists have been unable to specify what the created kinds are. If kinds were distinct, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities, with kinds within kinds within kinds. For example, the twelve-spotted ladybug could be placed in the twelve-spotted ladybug kind, the ladybug kind, the beetle kind, the insect kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kind, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where one sets the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism predicts.
2. Fixity of kinds is based on the philosophy of Plato, not the Bible (Dewey 1910). Nowhere does the Bible say that kinds themselves cannot change and diversify. Reproduction "according to their kind" is entirely consistent with evolution, as long as it is recognized that kinds are not fixed.
3. Although major changes from one kind to another do not normally happen, except gradually over hundreds of thousands of generations, a sudden origin of a new kind has been observed. A strain of cancerous human cells (called HeLa cells) have evolved to become a wild unicellular life form (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

Source

 

[logician]

Usually 2 methods can be used to date fossils, carbon dating, and finding "marker" fossils along with the fossil in questions in the same layer, marker fossils being those whose age is already well known. The latter method is probably used a lot more than the previous.

 

[McBell]

Man of Faiths claim:


The created kinds are distinct; evolution between them is impossible.

Facts:

1. Creationists have been unable to specify what the created kinds are. If kinds were distinct, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities, with kinds within kinds within kinds. For example, the twelve-spotted ladybug could be placed in the twelve-spotted ladybug kind, the ladybug kind, the beetle kind, the insect kind, or any of dozens of other kinds of kind, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where one sets the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff. This pattern exactly matches the pattern expected of evolution. It does not match what creationism predicts.
2. Fixity of kinds is based on the philosophy of Plato, not the Bible (Dewey 1910). Nowhere does the Bible say that kinds themselves cannot change and diversify. Reproduction "according to their kind" is entirely consistent with evolution, as long as it is recognized that kinds are not fixed.
3. Although major changes from one kind to another do not normally happen, except gradually over hundreds of thousands of generations, a sudden origin of a new kind has been observed. A strain of cancerous human cells (called HeLa cells) have evolved to become a wild unicellular life form (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

Source

What the Hell?
Don't you know you are not supposed to present facts in any debate concerning creationism?

 

[tumbleweed41]

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.

I can understand why you would think this way, with your admittedly 3rd to 8th grade understanding of science. Not to mention your reliance on data from proven unreliable and dishonest sources.

Fortunately, those who have achieved further education in physics and geology, and basic science itself, have verified the data using multiple dating techniques.

 

[Autodidact]

Now, turning to the fossil evidence, here the HoK is utterly discredited, and ToE confirmed.

Recall that ToE says that life first emerged in the oceans, with simple, unicellular life. Much later various forms of ocean life evolved, some of them capable of forming fossils, such as arthropods then vertebrate fish, only then land plants, then amphibians, with the first land animals being reptiles, and finally mammals, as well as plants with seeds and flowers.

So this is an enormous prediction. If we examine the layers of rock on earth, then the oldest, lowest layers will have only aquatic life forms such as ammonites and trilobites. Layers above that will show the first amphibian life, like Tiktaalik. Layers above that will have all the dinosaurs. And we will not see any mammal fossils till the top layers.

Is that what we see? Yes, exactly, every time. This is not one prediction, it is millions of predictions. There are millions of fossils, and they always follow this pattern.

I can boldly predict that if you find a fossil of an extinct trilobite, it will be in an older, lower rock layer, and I can also predict that if you excavate an ancient layer, all the fossils you find will be of now extinct life forms. I can further predict that if you find a fossil of a mammal, it will be in a recent, more surface rock layer, and, vice versa, if you excavate a more recent, higher layer, you will find mammals and other animals that went extinct more recently.

Now think about ToK. It says that all the kinds were created simulataneously. So that means that if we excavate the lowest, oldest, rock layers, we should find examples of all kinds, from trilobites to snakes to orangutangs, from stegosauruses to swans. Is this what we kind? It is not. The rock layers clearly show some "kinds" of animals appearing only more recently, nearer the top, and extinct ancient life forms only lower in the fossil layers.

HoK is now dead. It managed to make a prediction, and the prediction was not borne out. Falsification.

Note this is the case whether you accept radiometric dating or not. It is still the case that the older layers contain only primitive aquatic life, regardless of whether they're 6000 years old or 400 million years old. They don't match what HoK predicts.

FAIL

 

[Victoria Grange]

I think the world is such an extraordinary diverse and incredible place that we should treat it with a great deal more respect than we do at the moment. Whether you believe in one Creator God (whatever faith) or in the process of evolution, if we continue the way we are we will not be hear to debate about it for much longer. I truely believe that for every illness there is the cure is somewhere in nature and that is what we should be focussing on. NOT rooting up trees or polluting cities just in the pursuit of money, look where that has got us!

 

[ragordon168]

I think the world is such an extraordinary diverse and incredible place that we should treat it with a great deal more respect than we do at the moment. Whether you believe in one Creator God (whatever faith) or in the process of evolution, if we continue the way we are we will not be hear to debate about it for much longer. I truely believe that for every illness there is the cure is somewhere in nature and that is what we should be focussing on. NOT rooting up trees or polluting cities just in the pursuit of money, look where that has got us!

the problem is that if people are to ignorant to accept an obvious issue like ToE and still blindly follow a 2 millenia old scripture then what hope do we have of educating people about the damage we are doing to our planet.

i mean just yesterday i was listening to some huge consipiracy theory about global warming being a lie created by goverments. they had no evidence exept for a list of scientists who thought it was rubbish (none of whom were experts in the relevant fields) when asked for a reason for why goverments made up this lie the best they could come up with was a big brother society almost identical to '1984'

 

[ragordon168]

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.

so using that diagram humans evolved into various forms (the homids) then were wiped out in the flood. then from noah and the other dozen people he took on the ark the human race then evolved into another couple of variations.

if that was true how come all the homid remains all deate to different times, and how have no human remains less than 4000 years old been found with major variations that this diagram says should be there? and dont use race as a variation because thats something like a 3 gene difference.


i think your problem with ToE is that you expect some transitional organism to be randomly born. (i.e a human with wings)

this wouldnt happen as it is the entire species that slowly evolves over years as new genes are added to the overall gene-pool.

 

[Man of Faith]

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.

Thanks for that, I couldn't remember where I had found my copy.

 

[Man of Faith]

Usually 2 methods can be used to date fossils, carbon dating, and finding "marker" fossils along with the fossil in questions in the same layer, marker fossils being those whose age is already well known. The latter method is probably used a lot more than the previous.

You make a great point. I believe it was Kent Hovind that revealed the circular reasoning behind dating fossils. "Fossils are dated by the layers they are found in and the layers by the fossils they contained."

 

[OmarKhayyam]

You make a great point. I believe it was Kent Hovind that revealed the circular reasoning behind dating fossils. "Fossils are dated by the layers they are found in and the layers by the fossils they contained."

Proof again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

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.

Now doesn't that ring a bell somewhere ?
Something is either accurate or not.
Taking it to be accurate as long as it doesn't tell you something you don't want to hear is not really very serious reasoning.

I think I already asked you this in this thread: Would you be so kind as to provide YOUR "theory" of how life evolved along with evidence?

Its really tiresome to read all the same claims about supposed deficiencies in current science again and again, especially from someone who (well at least that was a decent act) admits to have no real scientific education.
Especially if the same person adheres to some other idea that he cant even explain.

 

[Autodidact]

You make a great point. I believe it was Kent Hovind that revealed the circular reasoning behind dating fossils. "Fossils are dated by the layers they are found in and the layers by the fossils they contained."

Kent Hovind, the felon with the fake Ph.d?

As always, you are wrong.

How stupid do you think paleontologists are?

Fossils can be dated using radio-carbon dating methods. There is nothing circular about it.

Once the date of a given strata is determined, any fossils found in that bed are from the same date--they would have to be, if they're buried in the same rock. Unless you know of some way to magically zap an organism into a rock bed after it's underground?

 

[Man of Faith]

Now doesn't that ring a bell somewhere ?
Something is either accurate or not.
Taking it to be accurate as long as it doesn't tell you something you don't want to hear is not really very serious reasoning.

I think I already asked you this in this thread: Would you be so kind as to provide YOUR "theory" of how life evolved along with evidence?

Its really tiresome to read all the same claims about supposed deficiencies in current science again and again, especially from someone who (well at least that was a decent act) admits to have no real scientific education.
Especially if the same person adheres to some other idea that he cant even explain.

I have no theory about how life evolved, I just go by what the Bible says, which is animals and man reproduce after their own kind, which is what we observe also.

 

[Man of Faith]

Kent Hovind, the felon with the fake Ph.d?

As always, you are wrong.

How stupid do you think paleontologists are?

Fossils can be dated using radio-carbon dating methods. There is nothing circular about it.

Once the date of a given strata is determined, any fossils found in that bed are from the same date--they would have to be, if they're buried in the same rock. Unless you know of some way to magically zap an organism into a rock bed after it's underground?

I will take that under advisement, thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

Now doesn't that ring a bell somewhere ?
Something is either accurate or not.
Taking it to be accurate as long as it doesn't tell you something you don't want to hear is not really very serious reasoning.

I think I already asked you this in this thread: Would you be so kind as to provide YOUR "theory" of how life evolved along with evidence?

Its really tiresome to read all the same claims about supposed deficiencies in current science again and again, especially from someone who (well at least that was a decent act) admits to have no real scientific education.
Especially if the same person adheres to some other idea that he cant even explain.

MoF has a hypothesis. It's called the Hypothesis of Kinds, or HoK. According to this hypothesis, God magically poofed two of each "kind" of animal into existence around 6000 years ago, and every species on earth evolved from these "kinds" since then. Unfortunately, this hypothesis can be neither verified nor falsified, because MoF has no idea what a "kind" is. Literally, none.

For the most part, he has not been able to generate any predictions from his hypothesis. That is, he hasn't done any science yet.

I have generated two, and both were falsified:
1. We don't see new species arising at the rate his hypothesis predicts.
2. The fossil record does not show an abundance of different "kinds" at the earliest layers.

Nevertheless he persists in holding to his hypothesis, despite all evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile, he is ignoring the millions of correct predictions made by ToE. MoF does not base his beliefs about the natural world on science, but on magic and superstition.

Until he gets sick, that is.

 

[Autodidact]

I have no theory about how life evolved, I just go by what the Bible says, which is animals and man reproduce after their own kind, which is what we observe also.

Don't you mean a bleepmorp? Animals reproduce only within their bleepmorp, and we don't know what a bleepmorp is?

If you don't know what a kind is, how do you know it limits anything?

Not defining your terms is a type of cheating. Do you see why? It makes it impossible to falsify.

Science is a method for keeping ourselves honest. You have failed this test.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You make a great point. I believe it was Kent Hovind that revealed the circular reasoning behind dating fossils. "Fossils are dated by the layers they are found in and the layers by the fossils they contained."

 

[Autodidact]

I have no theory about how life evolved, I just go by what the Bible says, which is animals and man reproduce after their own kind, which is what we observe also.

So if you were so unfortunate as to contract Hansen's disease, would you dip a live bird in the blood of a dead one and hope for a cure? cuz that's what the Bible says.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

I will take that under advisement, thanks.

While you are pondering here is some additional facts for your consideration.

:sorry1: But it is what it is.