Evidence for God from Science

Notice how national geographic did the story on the basilosaurus fossil found that fit in their timeline of 33 to 37 million years, but not even a blip on their radar of the scientific find of the basilosaurus fossil found that dated from 49 million years ago. Golly jee!!!, how could those unbiased folks at national geographic miss this tiny detail lol
Could it be that maybe it completely obliterates the evolutionary whale transition chart and in fact show that there wasn't in fact any macroevolution happening at all with whales???

neo-x wrote:

Notice how national geographic did the story on the basilosaurus fossil found that fit in their timeline of 33 to 37 million years, but not even a blip on their radar of the scientific find of the basilosaurus fossil found that dated from 49 million years ago. Golly jee!!!, how could those unbiased folks at national geographic miss this tiny detail lol
Could it be that maybe it completely obliterates the evolutionary whale transition chart and in fact show that there wasn't in fact any macroevolution happening at all with whales???

Bippy, with due respect, I don't see how this supports your case at all. Micro-evolution in the long run becomes Macro-evolution.

neo-x wrote:Yes but it is not arbitrary, it is logical, and in this case the only logical answer there is.

There are plenty of "sound scientific theorys" in the past which we now view as wrong,

neo-x wrote:

There are plenty of "sound scientific theorys" in the past which we now view as wrong,

for example?

Fat Earth Theory

neo-x wrote:

Fat Earth Theory

FAT earth theory

***
on a serious note Dan, do you really think flat earth theory was a modern scientific theory? You know science that developed after the 1600's and so.

As far as I know science has always existed, isn't science just the study of the natural world.

neo-x wrote:So other than flat earth theory, which I would not even call a scientific theory, which other theories do you think were hailed as a game-changer but were later found to be wrong?

neo-x wrote:

There are plenty of "sound scientific theorys" in the past which we now view as wrong,

for example?

neo-x wrote:

Take canines for example. You can pressure the genetic info into a lot of diversity but it has limits

I know this ain't going to convince you of anything but you are wrong here. You expect that a Dog will become a cat. Well that is the wrong assumption. Forget the dog, look at the genes, is it changing? If it is changing, over time lets say 300 million years, the gene might become so vastly different (depends on natural selection) that you may not think it is the dog (based on what you think a dog looks like) but some other species.

you see, how do you define limit, how you do define where and when exactly a dog no longer is a dog? Physical traits, anatomy, behavior?

The problem with saying that a dog will remain dog-like is that these naming conventions our for our own understanding, to the DNA, its nothing, its just evolving.

Evolution is about small changes, so small that it may be one gene mutation over thousands of years. Some mutations cause organisms to compete aggressively, others do not. But even recessive genes are most often retained in the DNA, the process is random of course. the point is, you have to look at the genes and see the change, not that you can get a new species of unknown origin by mating canines.

RickD » Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:25 pm

neo-x wrote:
There are plenty of "sound scientific theorys" in the past which we now view as wrong,


for example?

I don't know if I would call these "sound", but they were pretty well accepted:
Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)

Dog to become a cat? Good golly, talk about a straw man. Not to mention intellectually insulting.

Everything we see in the canine species is devolving.

The real crime is setting arbirtrary (which is what scientists are doing) limits and then saying, "See, evolution!!"

This isn't my first thread on the topic, and I've yet to see any Darwinist be able to dispute that reality.

Evolutionary math is this. Guy says, "I can double your money." Sounds great. Guy takes the other's $20, goes to the bank counter and gets change in the form of a $10 and two $5 bills, puts to $10 in his own pocket, hands the guy back the two $5 and says, "you are welcome!"