If Evolution is Not True...

[Polymath257]

Okay -- you claimed math skills. Here's a comparative problem for you to solve:

1. Assume that Kepler was correct about planetary elliptical orbits and Newton correct about gravity
2. Set Earth at 0,0,0
3. Assume fuel is NOT unlimited, and therefore gravity assist will be needed
4. Plot a path from Earth to Neptune showing the math

4b -- Now, do the same with Sol at 0,0,0 -- and everything else the same.

(Please remember as you present your math that this assumes Sol is orbiting the earth, as are the other planets. I might forgive a version with Sol orbiting earth, and all the other planets orbiting Sol, but that's not generally what a geo-centric model assumes.)

Although Tycho Brahe accepted a model with the sun orbiting the Earth and everything else orbiting the sun. It fell out of favor because of the moons of Jupiter and, later, Newtonian mechanics.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Okay -- you claimed math skills. Here's a comparative problem for you to solve:

1. Assume that Kepler was correct about planetary elliptical orbits and Newton correct about gravity
2. Set Earth at 0,0,0
3. Assume fuel is NOT unlimited, and therefore gravity assist will be needed
4. Plot a path from Earth to Neptune showing the math

4b -- Now, do the same with Sol at 0,0,0 -- and everything else the same.

(Please remember as you present your math that this assumes Sol is orbiting the earth, as are the other planets. I might forgive a version with Sol orbiting earth, and all the other planets orbiting Sol, but that's not generally what a geo-centric model assumes.)

I, for one, would pay money to see the maths of the first one. I've already seen the maths of the second-- anyone who was an avid follower of Voyager and Galileo space probes, is at least familiar with those...

 

[rusra02]

Since I believe evolution is not true, the question you seem to be asking, is where did disease come from? And I believe the Bible answers that question. Whether we accept that answer is up to us.

 

[osgart]

the new priests of science and it's emotional attachment to evolution. The church of science . bow before the scientists . if they tell you it's proven fact blindly accept their wrongful inferences.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

the new priests of science and it's emotional attachment to evolution. The church of science . bow before the scientists . if they tell you it's proven fact blindly accept their wrongful inferences.

But. We Have The Facts:


Proof of evolution: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Proof of evolution: Evolution
Proof of evolution: 101 Reasons Why Evolution is True | ideonexus.com
Proof of evolution: Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program
Proof of evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
Proof of evolution: Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
Proof of evolution: Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds
Understanding Evolution
Welcome to Evolution 101!
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

So what kinds of things must we assume, if Evolution is not true?

1. That every species known was created
2. That there was either one or more creators at work
3. If there were more than one creator, they each shared equivalent creative abilities
4. That they either created for a purpose (they had a reason for doing it) or they didn't

There are, of course, many more, but these will do for now.

** Blind Post **

False Dichotomy.

It means that we would need to revisit everything we believe to be true about the diversity of life and the origin of the species. "We don't know so therefore God" just fails miserably.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Have you got an example other than the horseshoe crab? (I could throw in the coelacanth, if you'd like.)

I say it is not "the realm of artistic impressions," but the realm of "punctuated equilibrium." Everything changes at different rates depending on conditions and needs. Horseshoe crabs, living near shorelines, continue much as before because whether continents shift and shimmy, they continue to have shorelines as long as there are oceans. But throw up a mountain range due to tectonic activity, or raise a volcanic island, or open a rift valley -- then follow that up with the inevitable climate changes (which are, by the way, less noticeable on coastlines and in deep ocean rifts where crabs and coelacanths live), and more rapid evolution will follow -- and then stabalize again. See Stephen J. Gould.

Yet like everything else, they somehow appeared abruptly, fully formed and highly evolved, just as complex as modern crabs- before settling down to 100's of millions of years of zero evolution

Punctuated equilibrium concedes that the gaps are real for the most part- as skeptics predicted all along, but those elusive intermediates in between are still the realm of artistic impressions- and are being squeezed into ever tighter timeframes, within which to stumble upon millions of significant design improvements by blind chance, that's hardly moving in the direction of supporting Darwinism is it?


And we see the same pattern emerging everywhere. One of the most elementary examples used in school was a Giraffe's neck gradually getting longer by 'natural selection'

Any luck finding that half necked Giraffe yet? That would at least be a start

 

[Polymath257]

Yet like everything else, they somehow appeared abruptly, fully formed and highly evolved, just as complex as modern crabs- before settling down to 100's of millions of years of zero evolution

Punctuated equilibrium concedes that the gaps are real for the most part- as skeptics predicted all along, but those elusive intermediates in between are still the realm of artistic impressions- and are being squeezed into ever tighter timeframes, within which to stumble upon millions of significant design improvements by blind chance, that's hardly moving in the direction of supporting Darwinism is it?


And we see the same pattern emerging everywhere. One of the most elementary examples used in school was a Giraffe's neck gradually getting longer by 'natural selection'

Any luck finding that half necked Giraffe yet? That would at least be a start

Ask and ye shall receive:

7-Million-Year-Old Fossils Show How the Giraffe Got Its Long Neck
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151007033229.htm
Elongation of the giraffe neck | Open Science

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ask and ye shall receive:

7-Million-Year-Old Fossils Show How the Giraffe Got Its Long Neck
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151007033229.htm
Elongation of the giraffe neck | Open Science

from the article:

The researchers also noted that S. major is not a direct ancestor of the giraffe. [] the direct ancestor has not been found yet

Let's try another easy one- how 'bout birds from Dinos, or dogs from wolves? These were predicted 150 years ago, surely these simple links have been established by evidence?!

 

[Jose Fly]

from the article:

The researchers also noted that S. major is not a direct ancestor of the giraffe. [] the direct ancestor has not been found yet

Let's try another easy one- how 'bout birds from Dinos, or dogs from wolves? These were predicted 150 years ago, surely these simple links have been established by evidence?!

Sheesh.....do you creationists ever come up with anything new? You've been playing this same card for quite some time now and it hasn't accomplished anything (unless you count how many times it's been exposed as dishonest misrepresentation), yet you keep playing it.

Are you hoping that maybe the 75th time you repeat this argument it'll have some impact?

 

[viole]

Speak for yourself, most people never believed evolution did they?

Yes, and probably most people never believed that black cats do not bring bad luck.

By the way. Nobody believes in evolution. Some do not believe in it because an ancient book written by some goat herders says otherwise, others do not believe in it because they rather know it to be true.

Ciao

- fiole

 

[Polymath257]

from the article:

The researchers also noted that S. major is not a direct ancestor of the giraffe. [] the direct ancestor has not been found yet

Let's try another easy one- how 'bout birds from Dinos, or dogs from wolves? These were predicted 150 years ago, surely these simple links have been established by evidence?!

You asked for a short-necked giraffe. I provided.

Because of the way evolution works, we usually won't have a *direct* ancestor. Typically, there is a diversification that leads to many related species with only one of those being a direct ancestor. But this is certainly a cousin to the giraffes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You asked for a short-necked giraffe. I provided.

Because of the way evolution works, we usually won't have a *direct* ancestor. Typically, there is a diversification that leads to many related species with only one of those being a direct ancestor. But this is certainly a cousin to the giraffes.

But we do have a direct 'ancestor', it's called Giraffa Jumae, it goes back millions of years, predating your 'Giraffe cousin' and it's neck was just as long, if not longer than a Giraffes today!

So we have no evidence of this gradual process of the Giraffe's neck becoming progressively longer by natural selection. Even though it is one of the most classic and intuitive examples of evolution, not one single link in this chain has ever been found, they remain entirely in the realm of imagination and artistic impressions.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Guy, you are debating whether or not evolution is true and are straying from the point of this topic; which is, "What if Evolution isn't true?" Do you have something to add to the discussion of "what if Evolution isn't true?"

 

[Sapiens]

But we do have a direct 'ancestor', it's called Giraffa Jumae, it goes back millions of years, predating your 'Giraffe cousin' and it's neck was just as long, if not longer than a Giraffes today!

So we have no evidence of this gradual process of the Giraffe's neck becoming progressively longer by natural selection. Even though it is one of the most classic and intuitive examples of evolution, not one single link in this chain has ever been found, they remain entirely in the realm of imagination and artistic impressions.

Try again, or perhaps restrict your comments to fields you have marginal or better competence in: 7-Million-Year-Old Fossils Show How the Giraffe Got Its Long Neck

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Try again, or perhaps restrict your comments to fields you have marginal or better competence in: 7-Million-Year-Old Fossils Show How the Giraffe Got Its Long Neck

Once again in case you missed it- from the article:

The researchers also noted that S. major is not a direct ancestor of the giraffe. [] the direct ancestor has not been found yet

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Guy, you are debating whether or not evolution is true and are straying from the point of this topic; which is, "What if Evolution isn't true?" Do you have something to add to the discussion of "what if Evolution isn't true?"

ah yes, thank you! - the point was:

..that as we progress beyond Darwinist evolution, everything that's actually scientific about natural history remains,

It means that everything in the fossil record can finally be accepted at face value, with no need for infinite artistic impressions of hypothetical transitionals, and excuses for why they were never found

We can also reconcile that the development of life continues by the same mechanism as the physical reality which so specifically supports it- i.e. according to predetermined plans, not random luck- there is no sudden switch in creative mechanism at the point first replicator as evolution demands

We no longer have to pretend that 'junk DNA' is devoid of useful information, and can begin to investigate deeper into those preexisting blueprints for life, just as we did physics

As for all those dreaded theistic implications.. don't worry

Again we have seen this all before, that's why the Big Bang and Quantum mechanics was so uncomfortable for many, because of what they feared as the implications of a creation event and mysterious underlying guiding forces, and fine tuning. The odds of physical reality accidentally designing itself are already so absurdly long, that infinite probability machines are now proposed as the only way left to try to explain it without creative intelligence!

If people can believe in such an explanation for the fine tuning and predetermination of physics, why not biology?
i.e.. nobody will be forced to give up their belief in atheism

 

[Sapiens]

Once again in case you missed it- from the article:

The researchers also noted that S. major is not a direct ancestor of the giraffe. [] the direct ancestor has not been found yet

The article said: "The researchers also noted that S. major is not a direct ancestor of the giraffe. "It's near the direct ancestor," Solounias said. "But the direct ancestor has not been found yet."

If you knew anything at all about paleontology and evolution you'd realize that no fossil is a "direct" ancestor of an extant species, they are all marginally off the direct path and "near the direct ancestor" is actually about the best that may be expected. Evolution is a bush, no a ladder.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

ah yes, thank you! - the point was:

..that as we progress beyond Darwinist evolution, everything that's actually scientific about natural history remains,

It means that everything in the fossil record can finally be accepted at face value, with no need for infinite artistic impressions of hypothetical transitionals, and excuses for why they were never found

We can also reconcile that the development of life continues by the same mechanism as the physical reality which so specifically supports it- i.e. according to predetermined plans, not random luck- there is no sudden switch in creative mechanism at the point first replicator as evolution demands

We no longer have to pretend that 'junk DNA' is devoid of useful information, and can begin to investigate deeper into those preexisting blueprints for life, just as we did physics

As for all those dreaded theistic implications.. don't worry

Again we have seen this all before, that's why the Big Bang and Quantum mechanics was so uncomfortable for many, because of what they feared as the implications of a creation event and mysterious underlying guiding forces, and fine tuning. The odds of physical reality accidentally designing itself are already so absurdly long, that infinite probability machines are now proposed as the only way left to try to explain it without creative intelligence!

If people can believe in such an explanation for the fine tuning and predetermination of physics, why not biology?
i.e.. nobody will be forced to give up their belief in atheism

If science actually pointed away from evolution, the rational thing to do would be to give up on evolution. Sadly for the evolution deniers, this simply isn't the case; and your tired old preaching that has not changed in the last several years I've popped in and out of here is a comfortable fantasy for you. But for the sake of argument, if evolution is proved to be untrue, the rational thing to do would be to dismiss it, just as we dismissed aether.

On the other hand, we are quite agreed in that we need not give up lack of belief in deities were evolution found to be true; because it does not stand to reason that if evolution is not true, then "God did it".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The article said: "The researchers also noted that S. major is not a direct ancestor of the giraffe. "It's near the direct ancestor," Solounias said. "But the direct ancestor has not been found yet."

If you knew anything at all about paleontology and evolution you'd realize that no fossil is a "direct" ancestor of an extant species, they are all marginally off the direct path and "near the direct ancestor" is actually about the best that may be expected. Evolution is a bush, no a ladder.

Again this has already been covered:

we do have a good candidate for a direct ancestor, just not one that looks great for Darwinsim. it's called Giraffa Jumae, it goes back millions of years, predating the S Major and it's neck was just as long, if not longer than a Giraffes today!

So we have no evidence of this gradual process of the Giraffe's neck becoming progressively longer by natural selection. Even though it is one of the most classic and intuitive examples of evolution, not one single link in this chain has ever been found, they remain entirely in the realm of imagination and artistic impressions.

I understand that there are various theories that attempt to excuse the absence, and that's fine, but 'the dog ate my homework' does not equal a passing grade

- unless you just happen to have a very soft spot for this particular student!