what exactly do you Know... about evolution???

D-Lyte · Oct 12, 2002

Pete Harcoff,
Though it is your intention to make a fool out of me but nevertheless, I thank you for proving Darwin recantation to be false. I've got the idea of it being true from my biology teacher and from reading it in a book. Anyhow, other than your link I did some research online and found many with the similiar view as yours. Therefore I thank you for correcting me

Douglaangu,
Just to let you know you know your accusation of me trying to lie are false.

chickenman · Oct 12, 2002

your biology teacher shouldn't be teaching biology

lithium. · Oct 12, 2002

lol thats true.

Jerry Smith · Oct 12, 2002

seesaw: there was Neandertals are now there Homosapiens.

Neanderthals were Homo sapiens. Furthermore, they are not thought to be ancestral to modern Homo sapiens (sub-species: sapiens).

fields of wind: How much evidence in the fossile record shows any sign of transitional forms such as a half-wing/half-arm and so forth Shouldnt there be tons of these in the earth???

You don't have to examine the fossil record to find half-wing half-arms. Go to the zoo. If you are interested in transitional fossils, there are plenty of them (not the characatures of them Professional Creationists seem to think should exist). Learn more here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

fields of wind: Why the Cambrian explosion just goes from the only forms of life that show as fossils being simple single-celled types such as algae and bacteria. Then suddenly shelly invertebrates ... appeared (as paleontologist Niles Eldredge said). As he put it, "Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of fossils, ... does pose a fascinating intellectual challenge." These include more than 5000 species, including sponges, jellyfish, corals, worms, mollusks, trilobites, and crustaceans

Niles Eldridge is an advocate of evolution: his words obviously don't present a real problem, given the broader context of what is known about the fossil Cambrian - but Professional Creationists realize that they can cause doubts in the minds of people like you who are not aware of the body of science dealing with Cambrian paleontology and evolution in general.

Here are discussions from two different evangelical Christians about the misrepresentation of the Cambrian faunal "explosion" that are so common among Professional Creationists. 

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Miller2.html#Keith%20B.%20Miller*

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Morton.html#Evolution    

(Bear in mind - these are both Evangelical Christians - they aren't defending science because they hate God.)

fieldsofwind: the whole dinosaur to bird thing well what transitions do you see there the Archeopteryx??? Harvard's Stephen J. Gould said that "Archy" is simply a "curious mosaic" -- an extinct bird that has some reptilian features (like several present-day birds also have). "Archy" doesn't qualify as a transition because there is no evidence of which reptile he may have descended from, or which modern bird he evolved into. He had no known ancestors or descendants, so he can't be fitted into any sort of missing gap.

The first link I gave you has better information on the dino-bird transition than what you repeat here. Furthermore, check out this quote:

...Gould (1991, p. 144-145) states that "Archaeopteryx, the first bird, is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever hope to find." Strange words from someone who "specifically exclude ~~Archaeopteryx as an intermediate"!~~

(original formatting removed - bold is mine)

from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/challenge.html

I didn't read the rant about radiometric dating. Suffice it to say, that the Professional Creationists are using this stuff to convince you that radiometric dating is a "shot in the dark". If you acquaint yourself with the real facts, you will learn otherwise.

Here is a scientist's discussion of radiometric dating in the context of Professional Creationist obfuscation:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

According to the "More about the Author" segment, Wiens (the author):

has published over twenty scientific research papers and has also published articles in Christian magazines. Dr. Wiens became a Christian at a young age, and has been a member of Mennonite Brethren, General Conference Baptist, and Conservative Congregational, and Vineyard denominations. He does not see a conflict between science in its ideal form (the study of God's handiwork) and the Bible, or between miracles on the one hand, and an old Earth on the other.

Click to expand...

Perhaps this will be enough to convince you to take the things you read from Professional Creationists with a brick-sized grain of salt.

Pete Harcoff · Oct 12, 2002

Originally posted by D-Lyte
Pete Harcoff,
Though it is your intention to make a fool out of me but nevertheless, I thank you for proving Darwin recantation to be false. I've got the idea of it being true from my biology teacher and from reading it in a book. Anyhow, other than your link I did some research online and found many with the similiar view as yours. Therefore I thank you for correcting me

Sorry, I wasn't to make a fool out of you. It's just that after hearing the same arguments over and over and over (and after they've been refuted each time), it gets a little exasperating. Especially ones relating to Darwin.

Pete Harcoff · Oct 12, 2002

Originally posted by LadyShea
  Armies of strawmen!

*whistles the tune of "When Johnny Comes Marching Home"*

Lynn Thomas · Oct 12, 2002

seebs · Oct 12, 2002

Originally posted by D-Lyte

2) "The chance of creating a cell by randomly assembling 100+ AA (choosing from 20 of the 80 different types) while using the correct bonding (peptide bond) and avoiding the reaction of other chemicals around it is really slim. 100 (or more) AA in the right order and manners makes one protein molecule. And it takes around 200 protein molecules with the right function to make one living cell. In other words, it's like printing a memo using a dysfunctional printer--which chooses the letters by random and may print them upside down/backward." (Walter Bradley, PHD...found in "The case for Faith")

That's interesting, but totally irrelevant. What are the chances of getting two adjacent AA, using the kind of bonding that the chemicals already prefer? Now, what are the chances of repeating that a few times? Keep in mind that many substeps are copiable, so you might have a few hundred thousand small molecules which are halfway to what you want sitting around being duplicated... and the ones that don't work don't get copied any more, they get broken down and used as parts for others.

It's not so unlikely as all that.

Imagine taking a jigsaw puzzle, and just moving pieces at random. It'd take a LONG time to end up with a solved puzzle.

Now, imagine that, every time a piece is put next to another piece that it really fits, you glue them together, and start treating that combination as "a piece".

Suddenly, you go from "never in a million years" to "a couple of days".

Lynn Thomas · Oct 12, 2002

Sorry, I lost my message to you when I tried spellcheck... will try again.. Please visit www.drdino for some wonderful insights and illumination of the Creation story. If you believe in evolution, then all of this is just a cosmic accident, now is all we have, only the strong survive, so why not go for all the thrills you can endure? When you recognize that God planned everything, designed everything and gave everything of Himself to reconcile us to Him, it makes us each more valuable to ourselves and to others... A dangerous, enviable position to occupy!!

Pete Harcoff · Oct 12, 2002

Originally posted by Lynn Thomas
Sorry, I lost my message to you when I tried spellcheck... will try again.. Please visit www.drdino for some wonderful insights and illumination of the Creation story. If you believe in evolution, then all of this is just a cosmic accident, now is all we have, only the strong survive, so why not go for all the thrills you can endure? When you recognize that God planned everything, designed everything and gave everything of Himself to reconcile us to Him, it makes us each more valuable to ourselves and to others... A dangerous, enviable position to occupy!!

+1 - people posting Hovind's site as defense for creation

(And darn it, Christian Soldier's not even here to see it )

FYI, Lynn, everyone in this forum has seen Hovind's page. His pseudoscience arguments against evolution has been debunked again and again and again.

lithium. · Oct 12, 2002

Neanderthals were Homo sapiens. Furthermore, they are not thought to be ancestral to modern Homo sapiens (sub-species: sapiens).

Thats not completely right. Neanderthals were a ansesters of Homosapiens, so which we evolved from them. And there is evidence of it.

Caffeine Socialism · Oct 12, 2002

Look, seesaw, you're giving us atheists a bad name. Neandertals and homo sapiens existed at the same time. Neandertals were an early migrator out of Africa, and they migrated to Europe, where they became short and stocky.
Homo sapiens left Africa later on. Then, for some reason, all the Neandertals were dead 30,000 years ago.

LadyShea · Oct 12, 2002

seesaw....current thinking is that Neanderthals are not our ancestors. In fact there is much evidence indicating they lived at the same time as Cro Magnon man which IS our ancestor. There is some debate as to whether they are a subspecies of Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis) or a completely separate species (Homo Neanderthalensis)....but pretty much agreed that they died out due to direct competition by our ancestor species.

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news27.htm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1997/r&r9711q.htm

http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/f4/rsk200.shtml

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Chapters/Ch%2021/Neanderthal/Neanderthal.html

 

fieldsofwind · Oct 13, 2002

I dont think that anyones answer refuted anything that I posted

And the flaws with the radiometric dating process are numerous and seriousI posted testsresultsetc that explained how there must be daughter isotopes initially present in the rocks There are examples of how pressure affects these elements etc there are many occurrences of leaching etc I didnt post info on the studies of how the speed of light and gravitational forces (might) have changed in the past the evidence is interesting one may want to check into it.

The transitional fossils are not there. At least not anywhere close to the amount that must be there for the theory of evolution If someone finds something that they call a transitional fossil many times it the prediction will be proven false. Even if they arent proven falseshouldnt there be 10 times as many no lets just say twice as many transitional forms between taxas .where are they??? And the human ancestor fossils those things are obviously lacking in validity even from my limited knowledge. Bones taken from test sites all over a large areapieces of skulls being put together from different different animals at different stages of maturityit gets worse and you can say all you want that this one was the real deal etc these fossils should be everywhere how many are there so far 20 less than that??? And each one of them is wanting in the department of transition. I could dig up a midget put bones together from places all over the countryside and call it a transition come on.

The Cambrian thing well if someone thinks that it is just a creationist propaganda move show me why the whole Cambrian explosion is seen the way it is in the fossil record (dont give me a linkwrite/paste it here)

Now I havent even began to get into the biological/molecular flaws and they are many lets just say this

If life came from un-life soup. Then lets just wait and see it done in a laboratory create life you bunch of geniuses youve got all of the elements/chemicals whatever you need youve got laboratories with state of the art equipment youve got it so much better than the world had it create a cell for me

You can give me all of the give us time billions of years time garbageand it doesnt cut the mustardno transitional forms dating techniques(all of them) are seriously flawed hence the so called agreement give or take a few million yearsMolecularly, you cant do itI have documents that are too long to post now about astrophysical evidence for a very young earth I have geological evidence for the young earth ( garbage about the polar icecaps, sea floors, and other stuff) And the best thing is I dont need a lick of it to believe and I mean really believe, no matter what all the way I believe, and I wish that I could give you what is in me despite the death despite the darkness.. I believe.

Now I dont know how often I will be able to write out these documents (got a lot of other stuff to do) but they will come from time to time so you evolutionist boys will just have to wait. I barely put in a twelfth of the info from the radiometric dating piece in my last post.

You guys take care of yourselves

FOW

lithium. · Oct 13, 2002

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
I dont think that anyones answer refuted anything that I posted

And the flaws with the radiometric dating process are numerous and seriousI posted testsresultsetc that explained how there must be daughter isotopes initially present in the rocks There are examples of how pressure affects these elements etc there are many occurrences of leaching etc I didnt post info on the studies of how the speed of light and gravitational forces (might) have changed in the past the evidence is interesting one may want to check into it.

The transitional fossils are not there. At least not anywhere close to the amount that must be there for the theory of evolution If someone finds something that they call a transitional fossil many times it the prediction will be proven false. Even if they arent proven falseshouldnt there be 10 times as many no lets just say twice as many transitional forms between taxas .where are they??? And the human ancestor fossils those things are obviously lacking in validity even from my limited knowledge. Bones taken from test sites all over a large areapieces of skulls being put together from different different animals at different stages of maturityit gets worse and you can say all you want that this one was the real deal etc these fossils should be everywhere how many are there so far 20 less than that??? And each one of them is wanting in the department of transition. I could dig up a midget put bones together from places all over the countryside and call it a transition come on.

The Cambrian thing well if someone thinks that it is just a creationist propaganda move show me why the whole Cambrian explosion is seen the way it is in the fossil record (dont give me a linkwrite/paste it here)

Now I havent even began to get into the biological/molecular flaws and they are many lets just say this

If life came from un-life soup. Then lets just wait and see it done in a laboratory create life you bunch of geniuses youve got all of the elements/chemicals whatever you need youve got laboratories with state of the art equipment youve got it so much better than the world had it create a cell for me

You can give me all of the give us time billions of years time garbageand it doesnt cut the mustardno transitional forms dating techniques(all of them) are seriously flawed hence the so called agreement give or take a few million yearsMolecularly, you cant do itI have documents that are too long to post now about astrophysical evidence for a very young earth I have geological evidence for the young earth ( garbage about the polar icecaps, sea floors, and other stuff) And the best thing is I dont need a lick of it to believe and I mean really believe, no matter what all the way I believe, and I wish that I could give you what is in me despite the death despite the darkness.. I believe.

Now I dont know how often I will be able to write out these documents (got a lot of other stuff to do) but they will come from time to time so you evolutionist boys will just have to wait. I barely put in a twelfth of the info from the radiometric dating piece in my last post.

You guys take care of yourselves

FOW

see you just said it, you don't post stuff you know you just post stuff other people THINK THEY BELIVE is right. WHY DON't you do some reading and studing and then post something you know about . Yeah you say you don't believe it and thats fine BUT DON't call science garbage and thats what you are saying. When you say that the stuff that poeple have put there time and money into and you call it garbage no one goes around saying the bible is garbage, goto school and learn about physics and evolution and then post here about something you know.

lithium. · Oct 13, 2002

And another thing you havn't gave any scienctfic evidence of anything you have posted only stuff that YEC poeple have writen nothing scienctfic.

So before you go around calling something garbage go learn about it. And I don't mean learning about one side of it. I have studied YEC and evolution "OEC".

Pete Harcoff · Oct 13, 2002

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
And the flaws with the radiometric dating process are numerous and serious

The only people that seem to think radiometric dated is so flawed are those without even a clue about how it works. Then they hear about these "flaws" and immediately jump all over it like geologists, archeologists, etc, aren't aware of how to properly date objects via radiometric dating and the inherent limitations.

One question for you fieldsofwind, do understand "your" argument against radiometric dating? Do you even know how objects are dated?

The transitional fossils are not there.

Problem with this is creationists always want to see some kinds of weird half-fish/half-monkey. If you're going to redefine transitional fossil to exactly what biologists don't expect to find, then of course you'll never find one.

And the best thing is I dont need a lick of it to believe and I mean really believe, no matter what all the way I believe, and I wish that I could give you what is in me despite the death despite the darkness.. I believe.

Why are you even here then? You're obviously not here to learn. If you've already made up your mind about what you believe, then good for you. Why argue about it?

lithium. · Oct 13, 2002

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
The only people that seem to think radiometric dated is so flawed are those without even a clue about how it works. Then they hear about these "flaws" and immediately jump all over it like geologists, archeologists, etc, aren't aware of how to properly date objects via radiometric dating and the inherent limitations.

One question for you fieldsofwind, do understand "your" argument against radiometric dating? Do you even know how objects are dated?

Problem with this is creationists always want to see some kinds of weird half-fish/half-monkey. If you're going to redefine transitional fossil to exactly what biologists don't expect to find, then of course you'll never find one.

Why are you even here then? You're obviously not here to learn. If you've already made up your mind about what you believe, then good for you. Why argue about it?

heh great points i should have said that lol but you did, great post.

fieldsofwind · Oct 13, 2002

"see you just said it, you don't post stuff you know you just post stuff other people THINK THEY BELIVE is right. WHY DON't you do some reading and studing and then post something you know about . Yeah you say you don't believe it and thats fine BUT DON't call science garbage and thats what you are saying. When you say that the stuff that poeple have put there time and money into and you call it garbage no one goes around saying the bible is garbage, goto school and learn about physics and evolution and then post here about something you know."

No... I don't believe your evidence... (by the way.. you've posted alot of that lately) I am going to school (the Citadel) and I got an A in physics.

"The only people that seem to think radiometric dated is so flawed are those without even a clue about how it works. Then they hear about these "flaws" and immediately jump all over it like geologists, archeologists, etc, aren't aware of how to properly date objects via radiometric dating and the inherent limitations."

then tell me... why am I wrong on the dating process???

"Problem with this is creationists always want to see some kinds of weird half-fish/half-monkey. If you're going to redefine transitional fossil to exactly what biologists don't expect to find, then of course you'll never find one. "

and where are the transitions.. the millions that should be there???

and yes... I do know how it is done... ( and all of that after two days of study)

just think what could be done if I go for four.

take care fellas

FOW

lithium. · Oct 13, 2002

No... I don't believe your evidence... (by the way.. you've posted alot of that lately) I am going to school (the Citadel) and I got an A in physics.

Posting what, if you mean that you should learn what you are talking about before you post it yeah i said that cause so many people post stuff about evolution and science and not even really know what they mean.

good you made an A, but i havn't seen you post anything that you know only stuff that other people have writen, and if you know physics then you should have a open mind physics and science is all about finding the truth.

what exactly do you Know... about evolution???

Active Member

evil unamerican

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Imagine all the people.

Humanist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency