Perfection
The Great Head.
NET mean is usually in fluxuating circumstances where an animal changes slightly one way than back as the circustances return to normal. This happens occasionally with already succesful animals swiching between two niches
Creation vs Evolution
- Thread starter Total_cho
- Start date
- Status
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
If you were god, how would you explain microbes to Moses? Would you even bother? Moses was a herder, not a microbiologist. He wouldn't have understood a word of it, nor would he have any vocabulary to describe the pictures with.
Again, I don't do the whole 'chapter and verse thing', but if I'm not mistaken, there is a passage oft-repeated in the Bible about creatures reproducing 'after their kind'. God makes on proto-cat, it becomes many different kinds of kitties. Repeat until biodiversity achieved. Rinse hands thoroughly after use. Do not get in eyes. Store in a cool dry place.
Only by very narrow and hotly contested definitions of 'species'.
Who needs to interpret the fossil record? There are no intermediate species fossils, no gradual progressions of life from one form to another, so what do I need to interpret?
As to last, it seems to be working very well. And lets not forget that the patronizing started with the neo-Darwinists. All I'm doing is responding in kind, a thing that is getting very popular these days.
Difficulties, or results contrary to observation? Incomplete, or outright contradictory?
Variants, yes. Within the same species.
Which DNA shows a remarkable ability to repair, and coincidentally, do not appear to do much more than cripple or make cosmetic alterations in any event.
Given that all life on earth uses deoxyribosenucleic acid to code for its proteins, organsims that have similar metabolisms and structures should be as expected to have similar genetic structures as the sky should be expected to be blue on a clear day, not remarked upon as evidentiary of something not otherwise in evidence.
And how many of them were deformed by injury, disease, gentic defect, or just plain young or old and thus not good examples of their species? How many more were outright frauds? Mistakes? How many many more were so incomplete as to consist of little more than a few teeth and some fragments of bone?
By any sane standard of evidence, anything that was not complete, or at least consisted of one complete structure, like a foot and ankle, or a skull and jaws with at least a few teeth, should just be tossed aside. Instead, we are left to take on faith the assurances of some paleo-bio that 'These here teeth came from an ape-man that proves evolution, because this anklebone dug up 90 years ago might be from a related animal.'
Why, in the name of any revered sentient you care to name, would anyone take someone's word for granted in a matter of such importance, on so little (and such questionable) evidence?
No, it merely indicates that I've been huckstered once before in my life, and I'm adhering to the sound principles of common sense espoused in the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I am an evolutionist.
I follow the glorius religion of Unitarianism!
I follow the glorius religion of Unitarianism!
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
If I was God, I would put the knowledge directly into Moses' head. God can do anything.
Oh I see. Another thread where you are making up your own facts and lying to support your position. Well the fact is there are many intermediate species developments, very well documented for such species as elephants, pigs, horses, voles, oh and uh, humans...
No the patronizing started with Adam, right? Of course the tone in which an argument is delivered has nothing to do with it's validity, though sooner or later everyone becomes patronizing towards the most persistent non-believers and thickest skulls.
You are right: space aliens landed and made it in a vat overnight is better evidence. Or what you arguing again?
I'm glad you admit you have no evidence and we can ignore your position. Or what are you saying? The Darwinists have the easiest best explanation for the existing evidence. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve them or to search for an alternate explanation. If something is found that could change the thinking of all scientists on this, their minds, sooner or later, will be changed. Arguing against them is really just blowing hot air at this point, possibly with the aim of subverting our already shaky educational system to make America a second-rate science power. Very subversive, very dangerous.
Never in nature or the lab has ANYBODY observed evolution. Plus, the "missing links", if true, are only a part of the chain. And in evolution, it would take literally THOUSANDS of pieces in the chain. Which have never been found! 
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Wrong, my friend, evolution has been witnessed.
For instance when they were spraying with DDT to kill insects. The first few years were pretty successful in killing most insects but as the years went on, it became less useful because the insects developed more and more immunties to DDT. That is an example of evolution right there.
Also in the 1860 in england when the factories where in their hayday. The Moths which had originally been white changed to black moths because the trees where blackened by the soot.
There two examples right there.
For instance when they were spraying with DDT to kill insects. The first few years were pretty successful in killing most insects but as the years went on, it became less useful because the insects developed more and more immunties to DDT. That is an example of evolution right there.
Also in the 1860 in england when the factories where in their hayday. The Moths which had originally been white changed to black moths because the trees where blackened by the soot.
There two examples right there.
The Troquelet
Conscious
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,950
"
If you were god, how would you explain microbes to Moses? Would you even bother? Moses was a herder, not a microbiologist. He
wouldn't have understood a word of it, nor would he have any vocabulary to describe the pictures with."
And you'll keep on saying that every time we discover something Jesus didn't know. What good will it do?
There are no intermediate species fossils, no gradual progressions of life from one form to
another, so what do I need to interpret?
Outright lie, no place in this debate.
All I'm doing is
responding in kind
That excuses it? Whatever happened to turning the other cheek?
And how many of them were deformed by injury, disease, gentic defect, or just plain young or old and thus not good examples of
their species? How many more were outright frauds? Mistakes? How many many more were so incomplete as to consist of little more
than a few teeth and some fragments of bone?
AND HOW MANY MORE ARE YOU REFUSING TO EXAMINE UNDER THE COLD LIGHT OF LOGIC? So what if there incomplete fossils, there ARE complete ones. This is like saying, "My dog is not brown, all dogs are not brown." Logical fallacy. I would keep track of yours in this argument if I had a Cray computer to help me!
I'm adhering to the sound principles of common sense
Don't be ridiculous. Remember WE are the ones calling on actual physical evidence for our THEORIES - you calling on some indefinite deity for what YOU call FACT.
We do not claim to possess fact EVEN though we possess MORE evidence than you EVER will. WE are not arrogant about our knowledge of the world.
There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve them or to search for an alternate explanation.
Well Sultan, that's one disagreement I have with you! If we let science alone for too long it settles into dogma - we must keep searching for truth and never take for granted that we have it already.
If you were god, how would you explain microbes to Moses? Would you even bother? Moses was a herder, not a microbiologist. He
wouldn't have understood a word of it, nor would he have any vocabulary to describe the pictures with."
And you'll keep on saying that every time we discover something Jesus didn't know. What good will it do?
There are no intermediate species fossils, no gradual progressions of life from one form to
another, so what do I need to interpret?
Outright lie, no place in this debate.
All I'm doing is
responding in kind
That excuses it? Whatever happened to turning the other cheek?
And how many of them were deformed by injury, disease, gentic defect, or just plain young or old and thus not good examples of
their species? How many more were outright frauds? Mistakes? How many many more were so incomplete as to consist of little more
than a few teeth and some fragments of bone?
AND HOW MANY MORE ARE YOU REFUSING TO EXAMINE UNDER THE COLD LIGHT OF LOGIC? So what if there incomplete fossils, there ARE complete ones. This is like saying, "My dog is not brown, all dogs are not brown." Logical fallacy. I would keep track of yours in this argument if I had a Cray computer to help me!
I'm adhering to the sound principles of common sense
Don't be ridiculous. Remember WE are the ones calling on actual physical evidence for our THEORIES - you calling on some indefinite deity for what YOU call FACT.
We do not claim to possess fact EVEN though we possess MORE evidence than you EVER will. WE are not arrogant about our knowledge of the world.
There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve them or to search for an alternate explanation.
Well Sultan, that's one disagreement I have with you! If we let science alone for too long it settles into dogma - we must keep searching for truth and never take for granted that we have it already.
The Troquelet
Conscious
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,950
Never in nature or the lab has ANYBODY observed evolution
*SMACK*
That is the sound of someone learning that evolution takes millions of years. Learn the theory before you pretend to debunk it.
*SMACK*
That is the sound of someone learning that evolution takes millions of years. Learn the theory before you pretend to debunk it.
That's MICRO evolution. That has been witnessed it's true. But that's, for example, changes in the breed of a dog. But never has MACRO evolution been observed. Never has a dog changed into a bird or other species. Or even a change in the organs or genetic material or a completly new organ appearing. For more information read Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson
Maj
Emperor
Those were probably variations with the species. So long as the variant and its "original" could still produce viable offspring, the species remain the same. Look at dogs. They come in all sorts of shapes, sizes and colours but they're all of the same species.
Thus far I don't think evolution has been observed 'in action'. I doubt it will ever be, given the speculated amount of time required and the question of whether the species had evolved or was simply undiscovered.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Macro evolution just builds off micro with the same logic. Why did the insects became resistant, its because the ones who weren't died off leaving the ones who were to survive. Same thing with macroevolution. Why did fish eventually come to land? Because there were lush food and resources on land that were unexploited. Why did amphibians evolve into reptiles? Because reptiles can bread away from water.
Maj
Emperor
And just a quick Q for those of you with a firmer grasp on geology and common sense:
Given the vastness of the Earth's surface and the wealth of its topological features, would it really be possible that by now we would have unearthed all, or even most, of these "intermediate fossils"?
Given the vastness of the Earth's surface and the wealth of its topological features, would it really be possible that by now we would have unearthed all, or even most, of these "intermediate fossils"?
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
My arguement for macroevolution is at leat supported by the clear evidence of microevolution, how can you prove(in pure evidence) that there is a god?
Pure evidence does not include dreams, people claiming that they are the messiah, etc.
Pure evidence does not include dreams, people claiming that they are the messiah, etc.
Look at all life. The stars, plants, animals and especially people. Look at our fingerprints. There are billions of molocules. And a sense of right and wrong. That could not just appear. There needs to be an intelligent creator. Namely God. 
Plus, the prophets. Look at their predictions of the messiah. It was hundreds of years before Jesus was born. They claimed that God told them of Jesus. Of where he'd be born and his crucifixution and resurrection. And many of the prophicies were fufilled by Jesus' ENIMIES. Some of the prophicies of Jesus could not be fufilled by himself.
- Status
