tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6789467526694073891..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolution Professor: There’s Plenty of Time for Giraffes to EvolveUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-815021066364153172011-12-27T02:39:12.289-08:002011-12-27T02:39:12.289-08:00Rhitie
You make my case.
You say if ten thousand w...Rhitie<br />You make my case.<br />You say if ten thousand was determined the age then evolution would be finished.<br />if so then indeed there was no biological facts ever for evolution. NOTHING.<br />It was a great error of scientific investigation.<br />Why was it said there was biological evidence to demand acceptance?<br />You make my case.<br /><br />If a biological theory is not based on biology in its essence but a unrelated field of study is the essence then it has no claim to be a biologically investigated hypothesis.<br /><br />The geology point has made falisifying evolution impossible.<br />So TOE is not a scientific theory.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-633580145705782212011-12-25T10:15:37.388-08:002011-12-25T10:15:37.388-08:00You state that 4.5 billion years isn't long en...You state that 4.5 billion years isn't long enough. How long is? How to you come to that conclusion? What is the evidence to support your conclusion. <br /><br />Here's evidence from scientists, not creationists, molecular genetics, using established mutation rates, comes up with ~3.5 billion years for the last common ancestor. Earliest fossils are ~3.5 billion years bacteria. Seems to fit within the 4.5 billion year time frame.<br /><br />Your evidence is what? Nah Ah, ergo Jesus?The Loraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361004494346338824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49162958869379316532011-12-24T07:58:42.177-08:002011-12-24T07:58:42.177-08:00Robert Byers -
You are pigeon-holing. It's l...Robert Byers - <br /><br />You are pigeon-holing. It's like you think every theory in science slots neatly into a field category (biology, geology, physics, etc,) which can only be tested and supported by evidence within that field. <br /><br />This is patently wrong. If we found out tomorrow that the world was acttually only 10,000 years old, that would indeed scupper the theory of evolution. No-one would say "Pah, that's geology. You need BIOLOGICAL evidence to falsify ToE". <br /><br />In fact part of the reason ToE is such a solid theory is that it is consistent with a lot of evidence from a broad range of scientific fields.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32887647726756847662011-12-24T04:16:09.305-08:002011-12-24T04:16:09.305-08:00Interesting thread about small groups of people de...Interesting thread about small groups of people deciding and re deciding the age of earth.<br /><br />One of the great logical flaws of the evolutionary claim has been that a biological idea is founded upon geological ideas.<br />Without the geology the biology is impossible here.<br />Yet i always stress to evolutionists and ID people that this was a crucial logical flaw that in retrospect will be emphasized as to why the error of evolution stayed around so long.<br /><br />This biological theory was not easily dismissed or falsified because one would have to first falsify the geology behind it.<br />Yet if one must do this then essential ideas in the biological theory are not falsified by biological investigation .<br />Therefore the biological theory not being falsified- able means its not a hypothesis that has been evidenced by biology.<br /><br />Darwin admitted this in his book where he said put the book down until one accepts the geology presumptions.<br /><br />Ah ha. <br />Geology presumptions mean this biological hypothesis is not only not based on biology in evidence but its insisting that if the geology is wrong then there is not enough biological evidence to overcome this flaw.<br />So evolution by Darwin is largely a geological hypothesis with biological reasonings.<br />Evolution is not the result of biological investigation and so can't on its main point of time be biologically falsified.<br /><br />If you can't falsify a hypothesis then it has no claim to have been vigorously held to the scientific method.<br /><br />Open to criticisms here but I think a fatal flaw in logic was missed here.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34967376608870218912011-12-24T02:45:20.551-08:002011-12-24T02:45:20.551-08:00CH -
No, this is not particularly controversial....CH - <br /><br /><b>No, this is not particularly controversial.</b><br /><br />Of course it is. 99% of biologists in the world think there is enough time, you think there isn't. And if you want to show you're right, then you need evidence, data. Just saying 'There wasn't' is not enough.<br /><br /><b>Evolution was not working away on the giraffe for billions of years. Most of that time was much ado about nothing. Evolution must have worked in highly creative spurts.</b><br /><br />Nonsense. Every modern species is the result of evolution - a process which has been ongoing for billions of years. So yes, giraffes (and every other modern species) are the result of billions of years of evolution.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62007118995906838792011-12-23T19:06:59.617-08:002011-12-23T19:06:59.617-08:00Ritchie:
This is just a bald assertion.
No, this...Ritchie:<br /><br /><i>This is just a bald assertion.</i><br /><br />No, this is not particularly controversial. Evolution was not working away on the giraffe for billions of years. Most of that time was much ado about nothing. Evolution must have worked in highly creative spurts.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64890974150282653832011-12-23T17:21:06.279-08:002011-12-23T17:21:06.279-08:00CH -
The professor also explains why he thinks m...CH - <br /><br /><b>The professor also explains why he thinks <i>mathematicians are wrong to think there isn’t sufficient time for evolution</i></b><br /><br />Who are these mathematicians who think there isn't sufficient time for evolution?<br /><br />You speak as if mathematicians in general are in agreement on this point.<br /><br /><b>The creation of life, the origin of fantastically complex cells, the creation of biology’s myriad designs, new species arising, and yes giraffes could not have evolved over billions of years.</b><br /><br />This is just a bald assertion. If you think there is insufficient time then you need to <b>SHOW</b> it, not just assert it. It is, apparently, your whole point of contention in this post. And yet you don't back up it's central claim at all.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70376995353462937732011-12-23T11:05:30.187-08:002011-12-23T11:05:30.187-08:00Cornelius:
The professor also explains why he thi...Cornelius:<br /><br /><i>The professor also explains why he thinks mathematicians are wrong to think there isn’t sufficient time for evolution</i><br /><br />Do these mathematicians have names? Please provide them so we can examine their arguments.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pnas.org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/content/107/52/22454.full" rel="nofollow">Here's a PNAS paper</a> by some mathematicans that seem to think there's plenty of time for evolution.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.com