Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: LogicWings
[Prediction 4: There must surely be at least one species, and probably several, having no genetic similarities with any other life on earth.] This is precisely what cannot be proved by evidence. You cannnot "prove" it is "not a product of common descent" since you cannot prove a negative. The only proof would be a life form that had no genetic descent (meaning no DNA) and propogated by some other means.

I had in mind a creature with genetic material made of DNA, but it wouldn't have any ancestral forms. Kind of like what g3k used to claim for the platypus, but in this case there would truly be no possible ancestral forms. As an example: it would have 4 wings covered with silicon scales, a body covered with fur, 8 legs, 6 eyes, etc. It would be fully functional, and it would have a female companion, so it's not some solitary outrageous genetic freak. In other words, you couldn't tell it from an extra-terrestrial. Now that's an example of special creation.

As for 5 [The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.] Either God placed fossils into existence solely to confuse Humankind or fossils are evidence of some form of evolution. This is a classic either/or in this discussion.

Yes. All scientific tests are either/or. Either my theory survives this experiement or it doesn't. Are you criticising my point or what?

89 posted on 07/26/2004 3:51:41 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Here since 28 Oct 1999, #26,303, over 189 threads posted, and somehow never suspended.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]


To: PatrickHenry
I had in mind a creature with genetic material made of DNA, but it wouldn't have any ancestral forms.

Come on! You cannot prove this. How do you know there isn't an ancestral form that existed but went extinct with no other trace? Some mutational dead end that this creature is the only decendent of? You are attempting to Prove the Negative here.

In other words, you couldn't tell it from an extra-terrestrial.

Begs the Question that there are extra-terrestrials (which is a more plausible explanation than)

that's an example of special creation.

Begs the Question that special creation is a valid concept over and above other explanations, such as mutation or, as yet, unknown evolutional factors.

---

Yes. All scientific tests are either/or. Either my theory survives this experiement or it doesn't. Are you criticising my point or what?

Sorry, it was the chain of logic that led up to this point. Previous to your comments

one could argue that if fossils from two species, such as humans and dinosaurs, were found together, that would argue against the Theory of Evolution, but I don't see how one could argue that in order for creation to be true one would have to find any possible combination of species. There are millions or species, so having any possible combination would require quadrillions of fossils.

The very existence of fossils means that either God is trying to trick us, or the world is other than Creation. The understanding of when what was placed where is irrelevant.

IOW, the mere fact of a fossil record exists is either/or. . . especially when one takes into account generations of creatures that are the predicate for our very existence.

I'm not criticizing your point, I'm saying it doesn't exist.

98 posted on 07/26/2004 7:55:59 PM PDT by LogicWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson