If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Dallas News)   Jesus will not be riding his dinosaur in Texas   (dallasnews.com) divider line 908
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

26975 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2009 at 9:02 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



908 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-27 06:35:36 PM
colon_pow: here i will demonstrably demonstrate some tricky questions regarding the cambrian explosion.

Quote mining is intellectually dishonest, and does not substantiate your assertions.

You have provided no actual statements of substance. Your assertion that Lucy, Nebraska Man and Neanderthal were "fakes" is false, and you are a liar for making that claim. Your assertion that the recent vote set in place a policy forbidding a discussion of "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution is demonstrably false, and you are a liar for making that claim. Please explain why your claims on the subject of evolution should be considered credible given that you are demonstrably willing to lie when discussing the subject.
 
2009-03-27 06:43:16 PM
colon_pow: it's weaknesses are the fact that there are not transitional fossils, although some people claim that all fossils are transitional, even Darwin bemoaned the lack of them.

I gave you a whole site of transitional fossils. That site lists only a selection of the most relevant to today, it skips hundreds more. It also explains the reasons there aren't more "transitionals". And like all good science, it contains references so that if you don't believe it, you can go and look up where it got the information from, go to those sources, read them, follow THEIR references, and so on. There are many other places you can find info on transitional fossils, such as professors at your local university or employees of your local natural history museum, but that list of references is as good a start as any for your research.

The reason Darwin lamented the lack of transitional fossils is that he lived the mid 1800s. In the intervening 150 years since OTOOS was published, paleontology has advanced by light years, and we've discovered untold thousands of fossils that have made the picture clearer. Evolutionary biology STARTED with Darwin, but it has progressed in much the same way as modern physics has from Newton.

And finally, AnswersInGenesis itself, a creationist web site, has said not to use that argument, because it can be refuted. If you don't believe me, believe people who agree with you completely.

the cambrian explosion raises alot of tricky questions.

Ok, list a few, and let's research them and see what we come up with. The ones that I've found are being answered with science. Evolution, for instance, predicts that that's too much to evolve in one epoch. And it didn't. Recent genetic research has shown that several major groups evolved deep in the Precambrian, but simply weren't preserved in the fossil record. That happens a lot.

Each time a tricky question is raised by an anomaly, you can't just use it as proof that the theory is wrong like you did there. You have to see if there's an explanation for the anomaly that fits with the theory and is supported by independent data, or if the theory still works with a simple modification (for instance, the heliocentric solar system model originally used circular orbits, but it was slightly inaccurate. That didn't invalidate the model, all that was needed was to change the circles to near-circular ellipses).

the fakes and forgeries are certainly not among of the strengths of THE THEORY

I can certainly see how they might tarnish the reputation to a layperson, but they don't do much to debunk the actual theory. The fact is that they were A) not perpetrated intentionally by Big Science, rather by self-serving individuals who wanted some attention (and you have those everywhere, in science, in religion, in entertainment, in politics, in finance...), or who were simply mistaken, and B) they were exposed as forgeries by the very theory you are using them to attack. If we didn't know so much about the evolution of man, we would have continued to accept them. Instead they started to stick out like a sore thumb, and were exposed.

You haven't given anything convincing yet. Try researching the Cambrian Explosion for specifics
 
2009-03-27 06:44:09 PM
The Southern Dandy: The war between science and religion has been over for 500 years. Science won. That's why we no longer live in the dark ages and we're able to communicate with each other over the internet.

The only reason there is a debate about science and religion now is because the religious right has been shot down by the constitution over and over again in their attempt to get religion into our public schools, so now they dishonestly try to repackage their religion as "science" in an attempt to shoe horn it into public schools.

In the end all they've accomplished is to expose their ignorance and dishonesty.

Please keep your religion and it's inherent ignorance and dishonesty in your own homes and places of worship.


Well, the war may be won, but the fighting is not over. Yes, science clobbered religion hundreds of years ago, much like the US military clobbered the forces of Iraq years ago. However, religiously motivated "dead-enders" continue to wage a futile guerilla campaign.
 
2009-03-27 06:45:14 PM
maddogdelta: I debunked them with my Boobies...

I'll BET you did, cheeky boy!
 
2009-03-27 06:47:53 PM
colon_pow: the cambrian explosion raises alot of tricky questions.

So does the Holy Bible, but something tells me you hold your clergyman to one standard of proof and your biology teacher to another.

Why might that be? Would it help if your biology teacher threatened you with eternal hellfire, rather than just a week of lunch detention?
 
2009-03-27 06:48:39 PM
DemonEater: You haven't given anything convincing yet. Try researching the Cambrian Explosion for specifics

I think he's referring to the Creationist lie that all species sprung up in the cambrian and are still around today, just like they were in the cambrian.

At least I hope so. Because I'm planning on having Trilobite cocktail with my dinner tonight...
 
2009-03-27 06:49:30 PM
colon_pow: it's weaknesses are the fact that there are not transitional fossils

Transitionals FAQ, which covers both existence of and reasons to expect limits on finding.

colon_pow: the cambrian explosion raises alot of tricky questions.

Which have answers.

maddogdelta: So... you want to have a go at the theory. Let me help out. Read the following:

That's the 3.0 version; the 4.0 PNG posted previously updates a few points, based on prior criticisms.
 
2009-03-27 06:54:48 PM
abb3w: That's the 3.0 version; the 4.0 PNG posted previously updates a few points, based on prior criticisms.

Damn... I'll update it...
 
i^2
2009-03-27 06:56:45 PM
colon_pow: maddogdelta: colon_pow: student: teacher, why are there no transitional fossils?

There are plenty of transitional fossils. Every species is in transition, so any fossil you find is transitional.

oh that's rich Maddog.

here's another.

student: teacher, why was protein found in T-rex fossils when they are supposed to be millions of years old?

teacher: shut up. never ask that question in public school again. it's against the law. don't make me report you.


Dude. This straw you're selling? I don't mean to tell you your business, but it's evidently been soaked in some sort of feces and then allowed to rot for some months before being crudely formed into some kind of vague scarecrow shape.

Sorry, I'm not buying any.

/Worst. Strawmen. Ever.
 
2009-03-27 06:57:13 PM
cthellis: GilRuiz1: Possible sighting:

No, Kilted is paler than that, and doesn't have as lifelike a face.


Pfft, no, silly, that's not the problem. The problem is he got the Tartan wrong.
 
2009-03-27 07:04:24 PM
colon_pow: "There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks." (Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348),

"The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists-for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick-as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." (Ibid., p. 344),

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer." (Ibid., p. 350),

"The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." (Ibid., p. 351),


Lucky for us, we have come a long way since the god damn EIGHTEEN FORTIES when this was written. Geez, why do creationists even bother trying to use this book as a reference. It's an interesting historical read, but geez, the information is horribly out of date and there are truck-sized holes in it due to the fact that it was WRITTEN IN THE GOD DAMNED EIGHTEEN FORTIES!!!! Yeah, 99% of the fossils discovered were after this book was written, so no, I do NOT expect Darwin to have known about them at the time it was written. Geez. WTF?

colon_pow: "And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229),

Yeah, if you stand on the surface of the Earth, it's as if the Earth was flat, with no curvature whatsoever.

Do you know that most things don't get fossilized?

Do you know that most things that do get fossilized are destroyed by geological processes?

Do you know that most of the things that survive that are in inaccessible places due to geography, dwellings, politics or technological impossbility of retrieving them?

Do you know that of the fossils that are retrievable only a minute fraction are being unearthed at any given time by paleontologists because there are only so many of them in the world?

Even with all that, we STILL have way more evidence than we need for evolution.

So no, I don't think it's surprising that we have big gaps in Cambrian fossils: most of them will be under water or hard to fossilize. Hell, land hadn't even been colonized yet, so unless you have something like the Burgess Shale, which USED TO BE under water but now is ABOVE WATER, you will either not be able to get at the fossils, or they would have been long ago subducted and destroyed.

I'll even quote teh wiki:

Fossils of organisms' bodies are usually the most informative type of evidence. Fossilisation is a rare event, and most fossils are destroyed by erosion or metamorphism before they can be observed. Hence the fossil record is very incomplete, increasingly so, further back in time. Despite this, they are often adequate to illustrate the broader patterns of life's history.[21] There are also biases in the fossil record: different environments are more favourable to the preservation of different types of organism or parts of organisms.[22] Further, only the parts of organisms that were already mineralised are usually preserved, such as the shells of molluscs. Since most animal species are soft-bodied, they decay before they can become fossilised. As a result, although there are 30-plus phyla of living animals, two-thirds have never been found as fossils.[9]
 
2009-03-27 07:04:59 PM
KiltedBastich: Pfft, no, silly, that's not the problem. The problem is he got the Tartan wrong.

...?
 
2009-03-27 07:06:36 PM
colon_pow: (Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 348)

colon_pow: (Ibid., p. 344)

colon_pow: (Ibid., p. 351

The Origin of Species was written in 1859. Your material is 150 years out of date.

colon_pow: "The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life. Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time ... The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash." (Stephen Jay Gould, "An Asteroid to Die For," Discover, October 1989, p. 65),

I have highlighted the key phrase. The 'cambrian explosion' took place over a period of 50,000,000 years. That is longer than humans have been in existence. That is 384 times longer than humans have existed. The phrase 'sudden' refers to geologic time, which operates on scales of billions, with a B.

Recall that the Earth is known to be 4,500,000,000 years old, give or take a few hundred million.

colon_pow: "And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229),

"Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists."

So, that's a lie, thanks for playing.

colon_pow: "One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age." (I. Axelrod, "Early Cambrian Marine Fauna," Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7),

Note again, the age of this article. 1958. You're pulling context on articles from over 40 years ago. I don't have access to the article (anyone care to help?) but judging from it's complete title, I'm willing to bet that this contextual artifact is a pile of shiat as well.

Early Cambrian Marine Fauna: A new hypothesis that can in some measure be tested explains its origin in terms of coastal sites.

I've embiggened the important words for sake of clarity.

i2.photobucket.com

Thus far you've demonstrated an ability to copy/paste from Creation Quote mines and an inability to do your own research into the matter, while misunderstanding basic scientific terminology, basic geology, and are lacking in a concrete definition of 'weakness' coupled with an inability to produce a valid scientific alternative.

So, your basic creationist lies. You still haven't answered how you think any of this information is somehow off-limits in Texas schools now that they've altered the Strengths and Weaknesses language to say Analyze and Evaluate.
 
2009-03-27 07:08:14 PM
ninjakirby: The Origin of Species was written published in 1859

It was written a while before.
 
2009-03-27 07:12:05 PM
ninjakirby: So, your basic creationist lies.

So, that's a lie, thanks for playing.


Dimensio: Quote mining is intellectually dishonest, and does not substantiate your assertions.

. Please explain why your claims on the subject of evolution should be considered credible given that you are demonstrably willing to lie when discussing the subject.


Why do Creationists have to lie to get people to believe them, colon_pow?
 
2009-03-27 07:34:22 PM
ninjakirby: Note again, the age of this article. 1958. You're pulling context on articles from over 40 years ago. I don't have access to the article (anyone care to help?) but judging from it's complete title, I'm willing to bet that this contextual artifact is a pile of shiat as well.

Sure thing. It's available on JStor through my uni library. Got it now in PDF form. Gimme a minute.

Ah yes, that sentence is the very first one in the article. Setting up the question to be answered. It doesn't need any context - the author goes on to list the types of early-Cambrian fossils found, mention they're not found in Precambrian sedimentation, and observes that "Clearly, a significant but unrecorded chapter in the history of life is missing from the rocks of Precambrian time".

Some further quotes from the article:
"A clue as to why this early phase of evolution is missing occurred to me during a current review of the evolution of land plants. There is much evidence to suggest that the new, major categories (orders and classes) of plants have evolved chiefly in areas of environmental diversity, notably in the uplands, in sites well removed from the lowland basins of deposition where most fossils have been preserved (10). A similar environment has been postulated for the evolution of the phyla, classes, and orders of nonmarine vertebrates (7, 9). In both cases, fossils representing ancestral types in the eruptive stage of evolution are missing from the record, or at least are very rare. This is chiefly because these types comprised rather small populations living in sites remote from lowland basins of deposition or because, if they did get into the nonmarine record occasionally, those deposits have largely been eroded and the records have been lost (11)." Axelrod, Daniel I., "Early Cambrian Marine Fauna," Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 8)

(oh yeah, the creationist source apparently lost the guy's first name, and forgot how to cite author name in sources).

"According to the present hypothesis, therefore, Precambrian faunas were evolving in favorable coastal sites, in areas where any fossiliferous sediments which may have accumulated probably would not have survived the effects of erosion down to the present day. During the eruptive phase of Precambrian evolution the fauna presumably was confined to the near-shore and littoral belts by food requirements, temperature, depth and changes attendant opon it, and a host of other factors which were affecting the physiology of the organisms concerned. In the closing parts of the eruptive phase we may infer that relatively "advanced types" were radiating out into a new environment - the neritic zone - to which they quickly became adapted."

He also points out that Precambrian marine life was a lot smaller than their derivatives, and thus are harder to find, if the fossils even survived at all. The testable part of the hypothesis is that using microscopic, isotopic, and chemical methods may reveal particles of shell fragments and other structures of the ancestra coast-line fauna.

Anyone know if that has been done in the last 50 years?
 
2009-03-27 08:14:45 PM
PC LOAD LETTER: Lucky for us, we have come a long way since the god damn EIGHTEEN FORTIES when this was written. Geez, why do creationists even bother trying to use this book as a reference.

Because they rely on an ancient book written by desert-dwelling goat herders, they assume everyone else does, too.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-03-27 08:19:02 PM
colon_pow: it's weaknesses are the fact that there are not transitional fossils, although some people claim that all fossils are transitional, even Darwin bemoaned the lack of them.

the cambrian explosion raises alot of tricky questions.

the fakes and forgeries are certainly among of the strengths of THE THEORY


As I pointed out to you previously in this very thread even the Creation Ministries International is advising not to use the argument of no transitional fossil.

Link (new window)

So even your own team realizes that this is not a valid argument.

The other "weaknesses" you pointed out have been refuted many times already in this thread.

And yet you wonder why nobody takes the fundies seriously
 
2009-03-27 08:26:20 PM
CDP: And yet you wonder why nobody takes the fundies seriously

Or, put it another way...This is why people laugh at creationists (^)...

There are 28 installments.

If you want to see how easily creationists are pwned, maybe you can brush up on the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. There are 15 of them.
 
2009-03-27 08:34:52 PM
maddogdelta: If you want to see how easily creationists are pwned, maybe you can brush up on the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. There are 15 of them.

My personal opinion is that the creator of those videos immediately should cease teaching, cease all research and work exclusively as my own personal voice. I'll dictate all telephone calls, and hell - even personal appearances, just so I can pretend I have that guys booming voice.
 
2009-03-27 08:44:33 PM
The language adopted by board members on evolution and other scientific theories states that students shall "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing."


OMG! How will they be brainwashed into believing in Evolution if they are allowed to think and decide for themselves?
 
2009-03-27 09:07:23 PM
Mongo cut wood: OMG! How will they be brainwashed into believing in Evolution if they are allowed to think and decide for themselves?

I do not understand the basis of your inquiry.
 
2009-03-27 09:30:48 PM
idsfa: ?

Not bad.
 
2009-03-27 09:37:48 PM
Raharu: Separation of Church and state is there to protect everyone.
If you teach one religion in school, you have to teach them all, and Im gona take a wild guess that these people would have a problem with teaching the Hindu or Native American creation myths.

/hot like the sun going around the earth.


I learned about Islam, Buddhism, and Taoism in social studies in high school. Didn't learn about Christianity. Bit odd, really.
 
2009-03-27 09:47:18 PM
"Cambrian explosion" refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.

-----------------------------------------------------

The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

"Feathers For T-Rex?", Christopher P. Sloan, National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 196, No. 5, November, 1999, pp.99,100,105

Interesting Quote - "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism" Storrs L. Olson, Smithsonian Institution

Most of us know National Geographic as the magazine we flip through at the doctor's office. Renowned for its stunning photography, National Geographic is one of the most highly esteemed periodicals in the world. That is, until last November's issue featured a discovery hailed as the best evidence to date for Darwin's so-called missing link." But what was supposed to be startling news has turned out to be yet one more example of the scientific community peddling fraud as scientific fact.



The discovery was remarkable. Archaeologists in China had unearthed a fossil of a half-bird/half- dinosaur. This fossil was proclaimed to be irrefutable evidence of a transitional form between one species and another -- evidence that evolutionists have long sought but never found.



Then the truth came out.



In reality, the Archaeoraptor fossil turned out to be the remains of two animals pieced together. While some call it an honest mistake, most now believe that it was actually an elaborate and deliberate hoax. But why, you may ask, is the scientific community so quick to embrace disreputable evidence? And why would an institution like National Geographic fail to take steps to confirm the reliability of such an "amazing" discovery?



The answer? - - They're desperate.



You see, the lack of any evidence for transitional forms is one of Darwinism's dirty little secrets, and some scientists will do just about anything to keep it a secret - even to the point of fabricating evidence.

student: teacher, why is there so much lying going on regarding THE THEORY?

teacher: do not question THE THEORY
 
2009-03-27 09:52:15 PM
colon_pow: But why, you may ask, is the scientific community so quick to embrace disreputable evidence?

The scientific community did not "embrace" Archaeoraptor. Your assertion is demonstrably false (the relevant segment begins at 6:35).

Creationists frequently exaggerate or even lie when claiming a given event to be a "hoax".
 
2009-03-27 09:52:26 PM
CDP: Link (new window)

Interesting site. Really sad to see someone who's obviously not an idiot put so much effort into fending off cognitive dissonance. The author of that page is clearly scientifically literate and could have made contributions in any number of fields.
 
2009-03-27 09:54:13 PM
colon_pow: And why would an institution like National Geographic fail to take steps to confirm the reliability of such an "amazing" discovery?


Um, for the same reason that Billy Graham failed to take steps to set David Koresh straight?
 
2009-03-27 10:02:04 PM
colon_pow: "Cambrian explosion" refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.

And we've explained why the fossil record from the Precambrian is bad, and we've shown the genetic evidence that many of those major phyla were alive and well deep in the Precambrian (Wang et al, 1999). The Precambrian does cause a lot of controversy in scientific circles - the controversy is over HOW it happened, not WHETHER it hurts evolution.

The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.

1. China.
2. National Geographic, which is not peer-reviewed.

The answer? - - They're desperate.

Yes, they are...

You see, the lack of any evidence for transitional forms is one of Darwinism's dirty little secrets, and some scientists will do just about anything to keep it a secret - even to the point of fabricating evidence.

... to sell magazi----whuuuuuuuuuuut?

After all the evidence for transitional forms we've given, you're still trotting that out?

student: teacher, why is there so much lying going on regarding THE THEORY?

teacher: do not question THE THEORY


Student: teacher, why is there so much lying going on regarding the theory of evolution?

Teacher: Because when your stated position is incorrect, in order to support it you have to resort to lies. That's what a lie is - saying something in direct contradiction of the evidence.

And just because you willfully ignore the existence of it even when it is handed to you on a platter, does not mean that evolutionary science doesn't have a hell of a lot of evidence.
 
2009-03-27 10:03:57 PM
Lets look at the two models and their beliefs. Evolutionists believe life started as one "animal" (like an amoeba) and favorable environmental conditions produced a net gain of hundreds of thousands of new animal species!

Creationists believe hundreds of thousands of species were intelligently and instantly created at the beginning of time, and unfavorable environments have reduced this number. Decide for yourself which model is more logical and which model better fits observed events.
 
2009-03-27 10:12:24 PM
colon_pow: Lets look at the two models and their beliefs.

You are positing a false dichotomy.


Evolutionists believe life started as one "animal" (like an amoeba) and favorable environmental conditions produced a net gain of hundreds of thousands of new animal species!

An "amoeba" is not an animal.

You have lied repeatedly in this discussion. You have claimed that Nebraska Man, Neandertal and "Lucy" are fakes, when they are not. You have claimed that various animal morphologies emerged "all at once" during the Cambrian Explosion, but that is not the case. You have claimed that the relevant policy voted upon as referenced in the linked article forbids any discussion of the theory of evolution, when it does not. You have claimed that Archaeoraptor was widely accepted by the "scientific community", when it demonstrably was not. Given that you have lied so frequently and often repeatedly, why should any claim that you make be considered credible?


Creationists believe hundreds of thousands of species were intelligently and instantly created at the beginning of time, and unfavorable environments have reduced this number. Decide for yourself which model is more logical and which model better fits observed events.

Please describe the physical process or processes through which "hundreds of thousands of species were intelligently and instantly created" at the "beginning of time". Until and unless the event that you have referenced is meaningfully defined, through stated mechanisms, it is logically impossible to establish what, if any, hypothetical observations could constitute evidence supporting the occurrence of such an event and thus it is dishonest to suggest that any observations currently support the occurrence of such an event.
 
2009-03-27 10:12:35 PM
student: teacher, did people really used to believe that rats came from garbage and maggots came from rotting meat?

teacher: yes they did, that was called a belief in spontaneous generation. it's ridiculous to believe that. it doesn't happen.

student: teacher, how did life begin on earth?

teacher: spontaneous generation. now stfu.
 
2009-03-27 10:16:55 PM
colon_pow: Lets look at the two models and their beliefs. Evolutionists believe life started as one "animal" (like an amoeba) and favorable environmental conditions produced a net gain of hundreds of thousands of new animal species!

Creationists believe hundreds of thousands of species were intelligently and instantly created at the beginning of time, and unfavorable environments have reduced this number. Decide for yourself which model is more logical and which model better fits observed events.


You, sir, have just hoist yourself by your own petard.

If every single living species was created simultaneously, ALL would be present in the earliest fossil records. As they died out, some animals would disappear. Others would keep right on going.

In the fossil record for, say, the Cambrian era, we would expect to see modern animals like horses and elephants and mice as well as dinosaurs (which did not exist until the Jurassic) and the trilobites and echinoderms and so on that actually lived in the Cambrian.

If the evolutionary theory was correct, we would initially see a handful of primitive types in the oldest layers, which over time would grow and diversify, resulting in a greater variety of more complex animals in younger layers. Occasionally some would die out and new ones would take their place.

All we have to do to tell which of these two theories is correct, is to see which one the actual fossil record resembles more.
 
2009-03-27 10:18:11 PM
colon_pow: Lets look at the two models and their beliefs. Evolutionists believe life started as one "animal" (like an amoeba) and favorable environmental conditions produced a net gain of hundreds of thousands of new animal species!

Creationists believe hundreds of thousands of species were intelligently and instantly created at the beginning of time, and unfavorable environments have reduced this number. Decide for yourself which model is more logical and which model better fits observed events.


After much consideration, I'm going for the "amoeba" in option one.
 
2009-03-27 10:22:23 PM
colon_pow: student: teacher, did people really used to believe that rats came from garbage and maggots came from rotting meat?
teacher: yes they did, that was called a belief in spontaneous generation. it's ridiculous to believe that. it doesn't happen.
student: teacher, how did life begin on earth?
teacher: spontaneous generation. now stfu.


So, there's no difference between believing a steel I-beam can rust in a heartbeat, versus believing it can rust over the next thirty thousand years?
 
2009-03-27 10:23:41 PM
Dimensio: An "amoeba" is not an animal.

Hm. Would the LUCA technically be a prekaryote?
 
2009-03-27 10:24:33 PM
Dimensio: colon_pow: Lets look at the two models and their beliefs.

You are positing a false dichotomy.


Evolutionists believe life started as one "animal" (like an amoeba) and favorable environmental conditions produced a net gain of hundreds of thousands of new animal species!

An "amoeba" is not an animal.


that's why "animal" is in "quotes".

You have lied repeatedly in this discussion. You have claimed that Nebraska Man, Neandertal and "Lucy" are fakes, when they are not. You have claimed that various animal morphologies emerged "all at once" during the Cambrian Explosion, but that is not the case. You have claimed that the relevant policy voted upon as referenced in the linked article forbids any discussion of the theory of evolution, when it does not. You have claimed that Archaeoraptor was widely accepted by the "scientific community", when it demonstrably was not. Given that you have lied so frequently and often repeatedly, why should any claim that you make be considered credible?

ok, i lumped them in with the fakes, when in fact they were simply held up to be something that they were not.


Creationists believe hundreds of thousands of species were intelligently and instantly created at the beginning of time, and unfavorable environments have reduced this number. Decide for yourself which model is more logical and which model better fits observed events.

Please describe the physical process or processes through which "hundreds of thousands of species were intelligently and instantly created" at the "beginning of time". Until and unless the event that you have referenced is meaningfully defined, through stated mechanisms, it is logically impossible to establish what, if any, hypothetical observations could constitute evidence supporting the occurrence of such an event and thus it is dishonest to suggest that any observations currently support the occurrence of such an event.


ok, i'm going to be brutally honest with you here, dimensionless. I don't know how God did it. i think it has something to do with the way He speaks. I think He starts out with "let there be...." and then it is so. but back to the statement in question, it does appear from observation that species are disappearing, (going extinct) but no new ones are emerging.
 
2009-03-27 10:25:49 PM
colon_pow: student: teacher, did people really used to believe that rats came from garbage and maggots came from rotting meat?

teacher: yes they did, that was called a belief in spontaneous generation. it's ridiculous to believe that. it doesn't happen.

student: teacher, how did life begin on earth?

teacher: spontaneous generation. now stfu.


Your posting does not constitute a rational argument, nor does it demonstrate the validity of your position. Additionally, "spontaneous generation" is not currently posited as the explanation for the ultimate origin of life on earth. You are, again, lying.
 
2009-03-27 10:28:30 PM
colon_pow: student: teacher, did people really used to believe that rats came from garbage and maggots came from rotting meat?

teacher: yes they did, that was called a belief in spontaneous generation. it's ridiculous to believe that. it doesn't happen.

student: teacher, how did life begin on earth?

teacher: spontaneous generation. now stfu.


Abiogenesis != spontaneous generation.

Abiogenesis is the idea that the fundamental structures of life, amino acids and nucleic acids formed and began to replicate, structures that technically weren't yet alive. Such structures have been shown to form in a natural environment, although true abiogenesis has not been produced in a lab yet. Abiogenesis is a theory still being heavily researched with many unknowns.

And it has NOTHING to do with evolution.
 
2009-03-27 10:30:23 PM
Dimensio: colon_pow: student: teacher, did people really used to believe that rats came from garbage and maggots came from rotting meat?

teacher: yes they did, that was called a belief in spontaneous generation. it's ridiculous to believe that. it doesn't happen.

student: teacher, how did life begin on earth?

teacher: spontaneous generation. now stfu.

Your posting does not constitute a rational argument, nor does it demonstrate the validity of your position. Additionally, "spontaneous generation" is not currently posited as the explanation for the ultimate origin of life on earth. You are, again, lying.


they don't refer to it as SG, they dress it up, give it plenty of magic time and posit it inevitable.

it's still a fairy tale.
 
2009-03-27 10:30:28 PM
colon_pow:
that's why "animal" is in "quotes".


This does not validate your use of the word.


ok, i lumped them in with the fakes, when in fact they were simply held up to be something that they were not.

Neither Homo neanderthalensis nor "Lucy" have been "held up" to be anything other than what they are known to be. The specimen that formed the basis of "Nebraska Man" was never widely considered to be a hominid; it was always considered speculative and it was discarded relatively quickly once contradictory evidence falsifying the speculation that it belonged to a hominid surfaced. You are again lying.


ok, i'm going to be brutally honest with you here, dimensionless. I don't know how God did it.

Then there exists no logical basis for you to claim that there exists any evidence that "God did it".


i think it has something to do with the way He speaks. I think He starts out with "let there be...." and then it is so.

This does not describe any physical mechanism. Your baseless speculation is not logically equivalent to a scientific statement, and it is dishonest for you to equate your baseless speculation with science.


but back to the statement in question, it does appear from observation that species are disappearing, (going extinct) but no new ones are emerging.

Speciation has been observed. Either you have conducted no research on the subject that you are addressing, or you are -- as you have already done repeatedly -- lying.

You have still not disputed the fact that you have lied about the fundamental implications of the policy upon which board members voted. You claimed that the policy forbade discussion of "weaknesses" of evolution, when the policy does not do so. As such, your claim regarding the policy is a lie.
 
2009-03-27 10:31:17 PM
colon_pow: ok, i'm going to be brutally honest with you here, dimensionless. I don't know how God did it. i think it has something to do with the way He speaks. I think He starts out with "let there be...." and then it is so. but back to the statement in question, it does appear from observation that species are disappearing, (going extinct) but no new ones are emerging.

There are many new species of bacteria forming all the time. Hell, scientists have seen it in a lab. They have SEEN BACTERIA EVOLVE into a new species.

As to macroscopic species, if you live a few million years, you'll see new species form.
 
2009-03-27 10:33:44 PM
colon_pow:
they don't refer to it as SG


Then, by your own admission, you are lying.


, they dress it up, give it plenty of magic time and posit it inevitable.

You are again lying. No "magic" is posited by any credible scientist as an explanation for the ultimate origin of life. Additionally, as the ultimate origin of life is not a part of the theory of evolution, you are dishonestly changing the subject of discussion.


it's still a fairy tale.

Your assertion is based upon demonstrably dishonest premises and, as such, cannot be considered credible.
 
2009-03-27 10:34:12 PM
colon_pow: student: teacher, did people really used to believe that rats came from garbage and maggots came from rotting meat?

teacher: yes they did, that was called a belief in spontaneous generation. it's ridiculous to believe that. it doesn't happen.

student: teacher, how did life begin on earth?

teacher: spontaneous generation. now stfu.


♫ One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same... ♫

Actually, first of all let me say that this argument has nothing to do with evolution. Believe that God created life if you like, evolution still happens, and for all either of us knows, God created life and designed evolution into it so that it could adapt. Evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive, just like the heliocentric solar system and belief in God are not.

The origins of life are the theory of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis doesn't even contradict the existence of God, it just means he didn't create life on this planet. Still a whole universe out there to be accounted for.

Now on to your false equivalency:

Spontaneous Generation: The idea that a FULLY FORMED ANIMAL can appear out of thin air.
Falsifiability: Prove that rats and maggots are reproduced in some other way.
Method: Observe pregnant rat giving birth. Find fly eggs, observe them hatch and become maggots. Observe airtight containers and see that no fully-formed animals appear within.

Abiogenesis: Nobody really knows for sure exactly how it works. The general idea that various acids and other compounds combined in such a way as to create self-replicating RNA. There are other competing theories.
Falsifiability: Show that life started some other way. Prove that it is not possible for a combination of compounds existing on early Earth to combine in any way that results in RNA.
Method: We just don't know. We're working on it. You don't know either. But you're not interested in finding out.
 
2009-03-27 10:34:49 PM
heinekenftw: colon_pow: student: teacher, did people really used to believe that rats came from garbage and maggots came from rotting meat?

teacher: yes they did, that was called a belief in spontaneous generation. it's ridiculous to believe that. it doesn't happen.

student: teacher, how did life begin on earth?

teacher: spontaneous generation. now stfu.

Abiogenesis != spontaneous generation.

Abiogenesis is the idea that the fundamental structures of life, amino acids and nucleic acids formed and began to replicate, structures that technically weren't yet alive. Such structures have been shown to form in a natural environment, although true abiogenesis has not been produced in a lab yet. Abiogenesis is a theory still being heavily researched with many unknowns.

And it has NOTHING to do with evolution.


in other words, that's not fair, you can't go there.

that's right. we're not talking about origins.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
 
2009-03-27 10:38:14 PM
colon_pow: in other words, that's not fair, you can't go there.

that's right. we're not talking about origins.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life


It is intellectually dishonest for you to claim that Mr. Darwin's attempt to explain the emergence of new forms of biodiversity was an attempt to explain the origin of the first life. It is impossible to read Mr. Darwin's work and honestly derive the conclusion that he was proposing an explanation for the ultimate origin of life.
 
2009-03-27 10:38:53 PM
colon_pow: in other words, that's not fair, you can't go there.

that's right. we're not talking about origins.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life


Evolution goes from the first living form to what lives on earth today and beyond.

it does NOT cover the mechanism that created the first lifeform.
 
2009-03-27 10:40:52 PM
GilRuiz1: KiltedBastich: Nope, still not quite right, although the second one is closer.

You'd have to find a stormtrooper wearing this tartan:

[Stormtrooper in kilt image]


That's pretty close, actually. Might well be Cousin Andrew being disreputable.
 
2009-03-27 10:43:37 PM
DemonEater: colon_pow: student: teacher, did people really used to believe that rats came from garbage and maggots came from rotting meat?

teacher: yes they did, that was called a belief in spontaneous generation. it's ridiculous to believe that. it doesn't happen.

student: teacher, how did life begin on earth?

teacher: spontaneous generation. now stfu.

♫ One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just isn't the same... ♫

Actually, first of all let me say that this argument has nothing to do with evolution. Believe that God created life if you like, evolution still happens, and for all either of us knows, God created life and designed evolution into it so that it could adapt. Evolution and belief in God are not mutually exclusive, just like the heliocentric solar system and belief in God are not.

The origins of life are the theory of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis doesn't even contradict the existence of God, it just means he didn't create life on this planet. Still a whole universe out there to be accounted for.

Now on to your false equivalency:

Spontaneous Generation: The idea that a FULLY FORMED ANIMAL can appear out of thin air.
Falsifiability: Prove that rats and maggots are reproduced in some other way.
Method: Observe pregnant rat giving birth. Find fly eggs, observe them hatch and become maggots. Observe airtight containers and see that no fully-formed animals appear within.

Abiogenesis: Nobody really knows for sure exactly how it works. The general idea that various acids and other compounds combined in such a way as to create self-replicating RNA. There are other competing theories.
Falsifiability: Show that life started some other way. Prove that it is not possible for a combination of compounds existing on early Earth to combine in any way that results in RNA.
Method: We just don't know. We're working on it. You don't know either. But you're not interested in finding out.


i'm aware that evolution is happening. i'm quite sure that my neighbor's cat has a saber toothed tiger as an ancestor. i know about variation within species.

you don't know. you are working on it. i'm with you demoneater, keep looking, i won't try to stop you, i find science to be fascinating. but so far, i think the whole macro evolution, abiogenesis theories to be unconvincing. science proves what science proves. it's the scientist's interpretations that are often biased.
 
2009-03-27 10:44:23 PM
Before the thread continues, colon_pow, I desire a response on this post. The one in response to your "one 'animal'" post, where you claim that all life was created instantly at the same time, and asked us to decide for ourselves which model "best fit observed events".

DemonEater: You, sir, have just hoist yourself by your own petard.

If every single living species was created simultaneously, ALL would be present in the earliest fossil records. As they died out, some animals would disappear. Others would keep right on going.

In the fossil record for, say, the Cambrian era, we would expect to see modern animals like horses and elephants and mice as well as dinosaurs (which did not exist until the Jurassic) and the trilobites and echinoderms and so on that actually lived in the Cambrian.

If the evolutionary theory was correct, we would initially see a handful of primitive types in the oldest layers, which over time would grow and diversify, resulting in a greater variety of more complex animals in younger layers. Occasionally some would die out and new ones would take their place.

All we have to do to tell which of these two theories is correct, is to see which one the actual fossil record resembles more.


I want to know how you explain this weakness in your theory. Since I have spent half this thread explaining the perceived weaknesses in evolution, it's your turn.
 
Displayed 50 of 908 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report