Science Disproves Evolution

Fossil Gaps 4
​

“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that.” Hitching, p. 19. [emphasis in original]

“There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today.” [emphasis in original] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Well I tried having a conversation with you. Whenever you're willing to do that instead of just demonstrating your cutting and paste abilities you can feel free to PM me.

I'll tell you what. I'll be as open minded about evolution as you are about young earth creationism. Go.

Megaman the comment was not to you. I was trying to have a discussion with Pahu.

I'll tell you what. I'll be as open minded about evolution as you are about young earth creationism. Go.

I was just throwing it out there, figured you might be interested since it seems your priority is to get us to believe things about events from billions of years ago.

That's the ultimate logical fallacy, that if something cannot be disproven than it's true. There is obviously nothing we know for sure is even older than human written history than anyone claims it is, so what can we use as a comparison to validate these super-old earth claims. Nothing; hence, it cannot be proven to be true. And hey! That's the exact same fallacy atheists keep using on Christians, that if we can't prove God is real, He isn't. Neither of their claims are true based on this logical fallacy.

Yeah screw geologic dating methods, all we need are baseless assertions!

Those dating systems can only be proven to go so far back, and you well know that. You're basing all your belief... once again! On limited knowledge.

You know who else knows that various dating systems work only in given time frames? The geologists.

Have you read anything I've said on absolute certainty? And why is the presuposer the one to speak?

I have no problem with science investigating, studying, etc. What I have a problem with is drawing conclusions when one doesn't have nearly enough information to form such conclusions, and then basing everything one discovers from there on that limited premise.

Thats why they're called theories

Grey, you go in constant circles. I've seen this discussed from every possible angle. And now you're talking about theories again? Do you ever realize you're graduating to nowhere with your arguments? Why are you here? I can't help but ask that. Do you just love going in circles, beating the same material over and over too death over and over? Do you think people don't remember addressing your accusations and claims millions of times over? And you just throw aside the answer, obviously not even have considered them. And then you just go back to square one and start over again at some point in between. You must just love pointless debates with apparently no goal in mind, except nothing, I guess. You certainly aren't convincing anyone of your position, and you repeat this circular logic of yours enough times, no one whose been here for any period of time is going to bother replying to your posts anymore.

I have no problem with science investigating, studying, etc. What I have a problem with is drawing conclusions when one doesn't have nearly enough information to form such conclusions, and then basing everything one discovers from there on that limited premise.

I was just throwing it out there, figured you might be interested since it seems your priority is to get us to believe things about events from billions of years ago.

That's the ultimate logical fallacy, that if something cannot be disproven than it's true. There is obviously nothing we know for sure is even older than human written history, so what can we use as a comparison to validate these super-old earth claims? Nothing; hence, it cannot be proven to be true. And hey! That's the exact same fallacy atheists keep using on Christians, that if we can't prove God is real, He isn't. Neither of their claims are true based on this logical fallacy.

Well first off, I'm not the one who started the subject. Secondly, the reason why this is a priority for me is that creationists make it a priority. If scientists had to fight court battles to prevent geocentrism from being taught or for germ theory to come with a warning label then they would be about that too. To be honest, if creation/ID proponents just stepped aside on the education issue then I'd be fine. Lastly, megman125 I know you don't like me and to be frank I don't like you so out of charity I'm going to refrain from talking to you so that neither one of us has a temptation to sin. Based on your tone I don't believe we could handle a civil conversation on this.