Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I understand that, however new information needs to be produced to go from a lobster to a human. And there is no mechanism known that can do that.
-
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!
The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence
- Thread starter Man of Faith
- Start date
I understand that, however new information needs to be produced to go from a lobster to a human. And there is no mechanism known that can do that.
Alceste
Vagabond
Irony of the year award.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, it couldn't. Previously they couldn't digest nylon. Now they can. New information.
How could you have a new feature without new information, under your definition of information?
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Here's a novel thought: before spouting off about information, learn what it is.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
post 905:
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
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
You're not understanding. Nothing that we see today has evolved from a modern animal that we see today. If that's what you think evolution says, than yes you are right that would be false, but fortunately thats not at all what evolution states. It's preposterous to even claim that a lobster could transform into a human. Or that we should see a bunch of crocaducks, evolution doesn't work that way at all.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
MoF,
I am going to make this easy for you.
So far, whether you like to admit it or not, your attacks on the well established, testable, predictive making, and falsifiable Theory of Evolution have failed miserably.
Why not take a more productive stance and PROVE I.D., or Creationism.
You claim to have scientific sources. Use them!!
I dare you to PROVE creationism. Attacking the ToE is getting you nowhere. What you must do is put forth an alternative theory.
Post Your Creation Theory Here
Go ahead, present your evidence. Post your peer reviewed articles. Show us the tests. Show us the repeated verification of your findings.
Present your scientific findings in support of Creationism. This is your chance to show us all how there is an alternative to the ToE.
I am going to make this easy for you.
So far, whether you like to admit it or not, your attacks on the well established, testable, predictive making, and falsifiable Theory of Evolution have failed miserably.
Why not take a more productive stance and PROVE I.D., or Creationism.
You claim to have scientific sources. Use them!!
I dare you to PROVE creationism. Attacking the ToE is getting you nowhere. What you must do is put forth an alternative theory.
Post Your Creation Theory Here
Go ahead, present your evidence. Post your peer reviewed articles. Show us the tests. Show us the repeated verification of your findings.
Present your scientific findings in support of Creationism. This is your chance to show us all how there is an alternative to the ToE.
Last edited:
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I'm not a scientist sorry. However the same could be said to evolutionists, prove it with a lab experiement. Go ahead and prove that man came from apes in the labratory. DNA doesn't do it, that just proves we have similar features and that could be from design.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
No, no, no...
This is your opportunity to present your evidence. Let's forget ToE for the moment.
Here is your chance to present the "Theory" of Creationism.
Use your sources.
Venatoris
Active Member
I am inclined to agree. This thread does state that ToE did not come from looking at the evidence. This implies that there is evidence ToE does not take into account. I would very much like to see this evidence. It may alter my view on the subject entirely.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Why would you want to go from a lobster to a human? ToE says this can never happen. It sounds like you don't understand the theory yet, you know, the one you think isn't that complicated? Would you like me to explain why this is impossible under ToE?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No it can't. They are scientists.
It's tough when people are impervious to learning. MoF: go back to the beginning of the thread and review what we've learned. Science isn't about proof; it's about evidence. (next time I have to tell you this I will charge you.) Lab experiments are not the only kind of evidence. And we have lab experiments, several of them described in this thread.
Man didn't come from apes. People are apes. SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT PROOF; IT'S ABOUT EVIDENCE. That will be $1, thank you.
Design isn't a scientific hypothesis, because it cannot be falsified. Do you understand what this means? If not, I'll explain it to you.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
tumbleweed: MoF has told us his hypothesis. It's that God magically poofed two of each "kind" (whatever that is, he hasn't told us) into existence about 6000 years ago.
I called this the Hypothesis of Kinds, or HoK. It has been disproved in this thread. MoF is ignoring that, because he wants to believe it anyway. That's the difference between science and religion. Science is honest.
I called this the Hypothesis of Kinds, or HoK. It has been disproved in this thread. MoF is ignoring that, because he wants to believe it anyway. That's the difference between science and religion. Science is honest.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
from post # 930:
Under this system, therefore, we should find fossils of, at a minumum, members of the cat and dog families at the lowest, oldest level of rock strata in which fossils are found. And we don't. Never. Not once. We find fossils on these level, of tiny exoskeletons of primitive invertebrates, just as ToE predicts, but never, ever, a single bunny or horsie. Not once. The hypothesis is now discredited.
MoF: Your hypothesis has been disproved. You lose. You failed. It's over.
Under this system, therefore, we should find fossils of, at a minumum, members of the cat and dog families at the lowest, oldest level of rock strata in which fossils are found. And we don't. Never. Not once. We find fossils on these level, of tiny exoskeletons of primitive invertebrates, just as ToE predicts, but never, ever, a single bunny or horsie. Not once. The hypothesis is now discredited.
MoF: Your hypothesis has been disproved. You lose. You failed. It's over.
ragordon168
Active Member
exactly! what ToE actually says.
take 2 seperate species (i'll call them A & B for easiness)
you think given time species A will change into species B. this is NOT! what happens.
species A will evole into species A.2 then A.3 , etc
species B will evole into species B.2 then B.3 , etc. but will never evolve into any member of species A.
and going the other way. species A & B are the original members of their species (the way you see 'kinds' ) but if you go back from there you will find a species 0 which isthe ancestor of both species A and B.
OmarKhayyam
Well-Known Member
We all understand that is what he is claiming.
Now we would like to see HIS evidence supporting that claim.
Or perhaps he would - finally - like to agree with his Johnson fellow and admit this entire discussion is NOT about science. That science is not even relevant. It is about philosophy and religion.
Now we would like to see HIS evidence supporting that claim.
Or perhaps he would - finally - like to agree with his Johnson fellow and admit this entire discussion is NOT about science. That science is not even relevant. It is about philosophy and religion.
ragordon168
Active Member
well tumbleweed set up a thread for him to do just that, so lets see if he comes up with a valid hypothesis
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I will agree that the ToE is about philosophy and world view.
Venatoris
Active Member
NO! ToE is about science. Creationism is about philosophy and religious world view.