Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[Kev]

OK, interesting post, but too much to tackle at once.

Again, and again, we seem to keep butting heads on issues of what is theory, proof, evidence, etc. I have never said Evolution can be proven, any more than you can call it disproven. Which you can't. And you haven't proven or even come up with a better alternative, as far as I can see.

Two points:
I don't agree with the way you have rejected scientific dating out of hand, it's a little more than pure fantasy I would say.
Your apparent claims that DNA cannot change (evolve, mutate) is certainly debatable.


Shall we try and resolve these issues, or move on to whether or not birds evolved from dinosaurs?

Birds from Dinosaurs.
What exactly will satisfy you? Do you want absolute proof? Or just evidence. What about the following.

Dinosaurs are extinct,
Birds are not extinct,
Dinosaurs layed eggs.
Many dinosaurs had three toes and walked upright,
As far as I know, there are no lizards that have three toes and walk upright, but there certainly are birds with three toes that walk upright.
There is evidence of dinosaurs with feathers. (Intermediary evidence)

I would say that constitutes evidence, but maybe not proof.

Sorry but how is that anything more than conjecture, where is the science in that?

How about this.

Flies lay eggs
Flies actually fly
There are types of fly that are extinct
Are they related to birds?

There are so many different kinds of creature on this planet that it is inevitable that many share similarities.

A platypus also lays eggs like a bird.
It also has a beak

Is that a link between bird and mammal?


Plus a common build pattern doesn't indicate shared ancestery any more than it indicates a common designer.

If you believe that God created all life on earth then if things share a similar design its because the same God designed them.

In fact if you believe that one God created all life on earth you would expect them to share similar structures would you not?

We cannot prove or disprove either theory by looking at the similarities of organisms as both creation and evolution would predict such similarites.

I read this post and quite frankly I think we are wasting our time. No mate, the theory of evolution is a little more than just conjecture. But I sure as hell ain't goona spends hours and hours assembling a scientific thesis for this thread. For starters, I ain't a scientist, and neither are you.

For the umpteeth time, I can't prove evolution, and you can't disprove it, nor can you prove anything else. In fact some of the evidence you have presented is just plain false. Your flood evidence for example I have already shot holes in that.

Your rejection of scientific dating is wrong from a logical point of view. A couple of counterexamples does not reject the validity of a technique, or series of techniques, any more then 100% perfection is required to validate those techniques.

You reject something because it does not fit your notion of science, but neither is the concept of an omnipoptent, all knowing, all seeing creator science either.

I'm not attempting to prove the existance of God, just saying that there is no actual evidence for macro evolution.

I've not attempted to convinve you that God exists I'm merely pointing out that there is no evidence, or even body of evidence that proves that evolution has happened.

The dating methods I reject because I reject the geologic column.

You believe in the principle of uniformitarionism, i.e that all of the geologic features we see in the world today are a result of the same gradual processes that we see at work in the present day.

So gradually over many millions of years rock layers and strata have been built up to represent a nice neat timeline for us to explore.


I however view the world through the prinicple of catastrophism, i.e that the geologic features we see today are borne out through catastrophic events over short periods of time.

Look at the Grand Canyon. Science tells us that was created over hundreds of millions of years by the gradual erosion of the Colarado river.

I don't believe that. I believe it was likely carved out in a few weeks or months due to some catastrophic force of nature.

When Mount St Helens erupted 11 years ago it created a canyon, tiny compared to the Grand Canyon for sure, but it still displays similar features to the Grand Canyon and it created it in a single afternoon.

And Mount St Helens is just one tiny volcano of little significane geologically.

A whole series of eruptions or some kind of massive seismic upheaval could have led to the Grand Canyon being formed over a period of a few months rather than the hundreds of millions of years it is supposed to represent.

That's why I reject the timelines and radiometric dating, because I simply believe an alternative explanation for how the geological rock strata's were laid down.

And then you have polystrate fossils, inconvenient things like for example a fossil tree that has somehow managed to grow through several layers of the geologic column.

Of course the scientists will attempt to explain them away but the problems still remain and are visible for all to see.

Anyway there is no need to get annoyed. You are perfectly entitled to your belief just as I'm entitled to mine.