Posted on 11/15/2019 10:22:05 AM PST by fishtank
Darwinians Excuse Out-of-Order Fossils
November 13, 2019 | David F. Coppedge
Because Darwinism is built on philosophical naturalism, evidence can be moved around as needed.
Evolutionists never seem worried about out-of-place fossils. Why is that? The reason is that the philosophy of naturalism is the driving force that keeps Darwinism going. Darwinians think like this: (1) Naturalism must be our worldview. (2) Darwinism seems to be the best theory within naturalism. (3) If problems are found in Darwinism, there isn’t any competition, so we can just shuffle parts of the story around. This non-falsifiable strategy allows them to believe in the Popeye Theory of Evolution (17 Aug 2019), the Cambrian explosion, and any other rearrangement as long as naturalism is preserved. Even a Precambrian rabbit could probably be accommodated by a sufficiently talented just-so storyteller.
New fossil pushes back physical evidence of insect pollination to 99 million years ago (Indiana University at Bloomington). A fossil in amber has just doubled the evolutionary age of insect pollination.
"The newly reported fossil is described Nov. 11 in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The fossil, which contains both the beetle and pollen grains, pushes back the earliest documented instance of insect pollination to a time when pterodactyls still roamed the skies — or about 50 million years earlier than previously thought."
Could somebody photoshop or make a “Get Out of Timeline Free” card monopoly style?
And this is somehow an indictment of the evolutionary theory? What a stupid article.
Let me understand this. We have some ‘ scientists’ who are not using the scientific method, therefore we shouldn’t believe any science.
Isn’t that kind of like saying Christians who don’t follow Christ is reason to disbelieve all Christians.
I think it’s the very same.
“Natural philosophy” graduated to become modern science once it began to make useful and reliable predictions. Activities that don’t do those things oughtn’t to be called “science”; it’s an abuse of the term.
My thought is that both the scientific procedure and the conclusions of the faithful should both be examined critically and with a certain amount of skepticism, but also with a willingness to be persuaded by the evidence.
Of course, nobody has the time to do this for every statement by either group. However, there is a way to shorten the time. Disregard with contempt any belief that falls from the mouth of a progressive, Democrat, or any of that ilk,
How useful is the predictive capability...*cough* how much is it really *predictive*, when it cannot keep track of a difference in 50 million years in the time to develop pollination, when a single generation of the species involved is a few weeks?
When a prediction of time period is falsified, let me know. That didn't happen here.
Check out Dr. Kent Hovind’s creation seminars on YouTube for a different perspective on the true age of the earth.
Assumes a constant base rate of mutations for comparison of alleles and predicting the time at which one species branched off from another.
If the time frame for specific changes such as pollination is off by so much, this throws off the base rate estimation.
I’m a young earth creationist, and I also don’t trust Kent Hovind.
He’s a KJV-only nutjob.
I’m a young earth creationist, and I also don’t trust Kent Hovind.
...
I don’t trust the content of your posts about evolution, biology, or science in general.
I bet I’m not alone.
“Let me understand this”
Well, you failed at that. Instead you just made a strawman.
Any theory is going to be imperfect which does not disqualify it from being useful. The theory of evolution in no way is intended to contradict the concept of a creator despite the allegations of atheists.
Evolution is merely an attempt to understand that which was created by the creator. Denying evolution is denying the Creator had a plan...
*snerk*.
Let me adjust your bowtie for you. Why don’t you go conserve girls’ bathrooms while you’re at it?
I prefer my KIng James Bible over all other translations thereafter.
I’m not familiar with any of the collections of God’s Word before the King James was compiled.
Your basis of mistrust is that Kent is a KJV Bible only guy? He’s a nut job for that? Yet you believe that he is correct in that the actual age of the earth is less than eight thousand years old?
That you're not tall enough for the ride.
“I don’t trust the content of your posts about evolution, biology, or science in general.
I bet I’m not alone.”
Please enlighten me about how the reproductive system evolved or how a fly hatched a lizard that hatched a dog that gave birth to a human or whatever...
God created every living thing after it’s own KIND. There is no missing link, there is no such thing as transmutation of one species of animal or plant to another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.