Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
More Litter On The Road Of Science (2)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Queller" data-source="post: 67440207" data-attributes="member: 308564"><p>OK, the writers of the Bible considered bats the same "kind" of winged fowl as birds. What winged fowl did they both evolve from?</p><p></p><p> Yes, that's right. There is no need for God to tinker further.</p><p></p><p> <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /> I said nothing about mutliverses. I said that unless Barnes has conducted experiments in this area, then all of his claims are theoretical.</p><p></p><p> No that is completely incorrect. Here are some Precambrian lifeforms that we know from fossils</p><p></p><p>DickinsoniaCostata</p><p><img src="http://cfile201.uf.daum.net/image/112BC70E4BE1A10F10A690" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>Tribrachidium</p><p><img src="http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/dosevol/imgArt/dioram/Precambrien/Zimg/Tribrachid.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>Cyclomedusa</p><p><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Cyclomedusa.jpg/250px-Cyclomedusa.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p> What are you talking about? There is no evidence that anything other than evolutionary means alone created the genetic code.</p><p> </p><p> Then provide some evidence for that disagreement that is not based on your religious beliefs.</p><p></p><p> You are shifting the burden of proof again. If you want to claim that the only reason Stenger or Carrier hold their beliefs is due to their atheism, then it is incumbent on <strong>you</strong> to provide evidence for your claim. It is not up to me to refute an unevidenced claim that you have made.</p><p></p><p> What is nonsensical about a simple, straightforward question?</p><p></p><p>Do you understand the difference between an argument and an experiment? Yes or no?</p><p></p><p> Barnes actually conducted experiments where he varied the constants of the universe and observed the resultant effect? That's astounding! Where can I read about it?</p><p></p><p> I would say there was no such things a <strong>day</strong> before they were created.</p><p></p><p> I don't know, that's what I'm trying to figure out. </p><p></p><p>You said;</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If there is no way to determine the hours of that day then ipso facto that days could have been of any length.</p><p></p><p> Either of which contradicts the Bible.</p><p></p><p> According to the earth's time reference the sun was created first, which contradicts Genesis.</p><p> </p><p> Well, everywhere on earth a day is defined as the time between one sunrise and the next, the mean average of which is 84,600.002 seconds or roughly 24 hours. I can only surmise that you said this</p><p></p><p> you were referring to somewhere else in the universe. Although... you don't have to go very far to find a different length of day. Venus' day is 5,832 hours. On Jupiter is is 9.9 hours. </p><p> </p><p> Agreed. So what?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>No you haven't. Did you forget what you wrote earlier?</p><p>Let me refresh your memory:</p><p><span style="color: Indigo"></span></p><p><span style="color: Indigo">Although the Precambrian contains some seven-eighths of Earth's history, its fossil record is poor, with <strong>the majority of fossils being the stromatolites</strong> that are often heavily metamorphosed or deeply buried. </span></p><p></p><p>So you can brush away no precursor fossils as being due to a poor fossil record for your position but demand fossil evidence for plants prior in the same timeline. Not only that but plant life would be even less likely to be fossilized due to the delicate structure of plant tissue.</p></blockquote><p>Do you see the part I bolded above? That would be the <strong>Precambrian fossils</strong> I'm talking about. Also see above for other Precambrian life for which we have fossil evidence.</p><p></p><p> Plants are not that delicate. We have hundreds of thousands of plant fossil. Why would Precambrian plant fossilization be any different?</p><p> </p><p> That is quite simply incorrect. We have a lot of Precambrian fossils that are precursors to other Cambrian lifeforms.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion" target="_blank">Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?</a></p><p>Late Precambrian fossil discoveries also now include representatives of sponges, cnidarians (the group that includes modern jellyfish, corals and anemones), mollusks and various wormlike groups. Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans. <strong>The discovery of such precursors shows that the Cambrian organisms did not appear from thin air</strong>.</p><p> </p><p> There is no evidence of plant life evolving prior to sea life. None. Until there is, your claims are nothing more than wishful thinking.</p><p> </p><p> Which causes your claims to fail. For your claims to succeed you need <em>"grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself"</em> to be responsible for the oxygen, not cyanobacteria.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Queller, post: 67440207, member: 308564"] OK, the writers of the Bible considered bats the same "kind" of winged fowl as birds. What winged fowl did they both evolve from? Yes, that's right. There is no need for God to tinker further. :doh: I said nothing about mutliverses. I said that unless Barnes has conducted experiments in this area, then all of his claims are theoretical. No that is completely incorrect. Here are some Precambrian lifeforms that we know from fossils DickinsoniaCostata [IMG]http://cfile201.uf.daum.net/image/112BC70E4BE1A10F10A690[/IMG] Tribrachidium [IMG]http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/dossiers/dosevol/imgArt/dioram/Precambrien/Zimg/Tribrachid.jpg[/IMG] Cyclomedusa [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Cyclomedusa.jpg/250px-Cyclomedusa.jpg[/IMG] What are you talking about? There is no evidence that anything other than evolutionary means alone created the genetic code. Then provide some evidence for that disagreement that is not based on your religious beliefs. You are shifting the burden of proof again. If you want to claim that the only reason Stenger or Carrier hold their beliefs is due to their atheism, then it is incumbent on [B]you[/B] to provide evidence for your claim. It is not up to me to refute an unevidenced claim that you have made. What is nonsensical about a simple, straightforward question? Do you understand the difference between an argument and an experiment? Yes or no? Barnes actually conducted experiments where he varied the constants of the universe and observed the resultant effect? That's astounding! Where can I read about it? I would say there was no such things a [B]day[/B] before they were created. I don't know, that's what I'm trying to figure out. You said; If there is no way to determine the hours of that day then ipso facto that days could have been of any length. Either of which contradicts the Bible. According to the earth's time reference the sun was created first, which contradicts Genesis. Well, everywhere on earth a day is defined as the time between one sunrise and the next, the mean average of which is 84,600.002 seconds or roughly 24 hours. I can only surmise that you said this you were referring to somewhere else in the universe. Although... you don't have to go very far to find a different length of day. Venus' day is 5,832 hours. On Jupiter is is 9.9 hours. Agreed. So what? No you haven't. Did you forget what you wrote earlier? Let me refresh your memory: [COLOR=Indigo] Although the Precambrian contains some seven-eighths of Earth's history, its fossil record is poor, with [B]the majority of fossils being the stromatolites[/B] that are often heavily metamorphosed or deeply buried. [/COLOR] So you can brush away no precursor fossils as being due to a poor fossil record for your position but demand fossil evidence for plants prior in the same timeline. Not only that but plant life would be even less likely to be fossilized due to the delicate structure of plant tissue. [/quote] Do you see the part I bolded above? That would be the [B]Precambrian fossils[/B] I'm talking about. Also see above for other Precambrian life for which we have fossil evidence. Plants are not that delicate. We have hundreds of thousands of plant fossil. Why would Precambrian plant fossilization be any different? That is quite simply incorrect. We have a lot of Precambrian fossils that are precursors to other Cambrian lifeforms. [URL="http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion"]Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?[/URL] Late Precambrian fossil discoveries also now include representatives of sponges, cnidarians (the group that includes modern jellyfish, corals and anemones), mollusks and various wormlike groups. Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans. [B]The discovery of such precursors shows that the Cambrian organisms did not appear from thin air[/B]. There is no evidence of plant life evolving prior to sea life. None. Until there is, your claims are nothing more than wishful thinking. Which causes your claims to fail. For your claims to succeed you need [I]"grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself"[/I] to be responsible for the oxygen, not cyanobacteria. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
More Litter On The Road Of Science (2)
Top
Bottom