Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[davewhite04]

Great admin post.

 

[Randwolf]

So how do we know that a "transitional" fossil isn't just another species fossil, rather than the fossil in question? macro evolution did happen, bur MUCH faster than we think...Look at what man has achieved in just 6000 years! Something 6000 years ago(roughly) released the power of our imagination and we learnt to talk. That is either evolution or God or both. I say God.

Interesting that we learned to write before we learned to talk. Gee, I would have thought that the spoken language had been around for awhile before it was written down...

 

[zgmc]

So how do we know that a "transitional" fossil isn't just another species fossil, rather than the fossil in question? macro evolution did happen, bur MUCH faster than we think...Look at what man has achieved in just 6000 years! Something 6000 years ago(roughly) released the power of our imagination and we learnt to talk. That is either evolution or God or both. I say God.

You can go back to the link I provided. There is plenty of information there. Its pretty easy to follow. As long as you will pretend you are a rational human that is capable of learning new things.

 

[leopold]

SUMMARY: Mutual re-enforcing observed facts from nine different scientific fields of study, all supporting one ToE, is not worth a grain of faith for the ToE deniers. They know evolution is false, their bible told them so. God made the universe and all that is in it in six days. God, like the automobile industry, made many different models and of course some are similar to others.

But for others who reason, the link with long discussion of these nine fields reaching the same ToE position is a good read.

what is this billy?
clouding the issue?
there are only 2 things required for the history of evolution:
1. the fossils
2. the time line.

it's my understanding that "biomolecules" are not preserved in fossils and therefor have no relevance.

we have the timeline but we lack the fossils.
or to put it like eldridge, it doesn't show gradual changes.
and it's the exact same thing ayala was refering to.
there is no reason to hide from all of this.

i bet gould nailed it with his concept of spandrels, he just didn't look deep enough.

 

[Bells]

Great admin post.

It is born out of frustration of seeing someone, in the zeal of trying to deny evolution, dismissing ancient civilisations who not had art, tools, community and yes, language, written and spoken.

You only have to look at ancient Egypt for a prime example of this. To put it down to a young Earth type theory of just the last 6000 years and attributing it all to God. It astounds me that in this day and age, that someone could still hold on to such backwards beliefs.

 

[Randwolf]

what is this billy?
clouding the issue?
there are only 2 things required for the history of evolution:
1. the fossils
2. the time line.

leopold, when will you wake up and understand that even if there wasn't a single fossil in existence, evolution would still be the leading and most convincing theory of species development? There is extremely compelling evidence aside from fossils. Geez, it's like beating your head against a brick wall...

 

[leopold]

poor bells, i've had days like that.
it usually starts out by one girl finding out about the other one.
needlessly to say, i put a lot of miles on my car.

 

[davewhite04]

You can go back to the link I provided. There is plenty of information there. Its pretty easy to follow. As long as you will pretend you are a rational human that is capable of learning new things.

"Though a possible whale-to-mammal transitional sequence has recently been unearthed, critics maintain that transitional sequences are rare, at best. For this reason, critics argue that Darwin's theory has failed an important test.
Explore Evolution, p. 27"

hmmm did you read your link?

 

[davewhite04]

It is born out of frustration of seeing someone, in the zeal of trying to deny evolution, dismissing ancient civilisations who not had art, tools, community and yes, language, written and spoken.

You only have to look at ancient Egypt for a prime example of this. To put it down to a young Earth type theory of just the last 6000 years and attributing it all to God. It astounds me that in this day and age, that someone could still hold on to such backwards beliefs.

Are you having a freaking laugh? Where did I deny evolution? 10k years then, are you happy?

 

[davewhite04]

Are you having a freaking laugh? Where did I deny evolution? 10k years then, are you happy?

lucy and the lads hung around caves for 190k years, then all of a sudden speech, writing, art, music. Recently we have devolved! (joking, I'm hopeful of the future.).

EDIT: Hollywood and McDonald's deserve a mention, along with the Yorkshire Pudding.

 

[leopold]

leopold, when will you wake up and understand that even if there wasn't a single fossil in existence, evolution would still be the leading and most convincing theory of species development? There is extremely compelling evidence aside from fossils. Geez, it's like beating your head against a brick wall...

i don't think anyone here disputes microevolution or heredity.
this after all was the topic of the conference.
how these two processes interact . . . IF they do at all.
lewin prints an outright NO!, but then goes on to add they might be a continuum, which makes no sense.

i believe that goulds concept of spandrels is the cause of lifes diversity.
the problem gould had was he didn't look deep enough.
spandrels are the concept, "junk" and regulatory genes are the cause, and quite possibly the result.

 

[zgmc]

"Though a possible whale-to-mammal transitional sequence has recently been unearthed, critics maintain that transitional sequences are rare, at best. For this reason, critics argue that Darwin's theory has failed an important test.
Explore Evolution, p. 27"

hmmm did you read your link?

Yes and I understood what I was reading. I'm sorry that you don't. They are debunking the claims made in Explore Evolution, and other creationist literature. This is what is said immediately before the quote that you pulled.

Although creationists frequently claim that there are no transitional fossils, the paleontological record tells a very different story.
Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare
Are Transitional fossils are extremely rare?
Summary of problems with claim:
Fossils with transitional morphology are not rare. Fossils illustrating the gradual origin of humans, horses, rhinos, whales, seacows, mammals, birds, tetrapods, and various major Cambrian "phyla" have been discovered and are well-known to scientists. Explore Evolution's claims to the contrary are just a rehash of older creationist arguments on this point, relying on out-of-context quotes, confusion over terminology and classification, and ignoring inconvenient evidence. "Though a possible whale-to-mammal transitional sequence has recently been unearthed, critics maintain that transitional sequences are rare, at best. For this reason, critics argue that Darwin's theory has failed an important test.
Explore Evolution, p. 27

 

[davewhite04]

"Though a possible whale-to-mammal transitional sequence has recently been unearthed, critics maintain that transitional sequences are rare, at best. For this reason, critics argue that Darwin's theory has failed an important test.
Explore Evolution, p. 27"

hmmm did you read your link?

guess the guy expected to blind me with a 10metre page of text that would try and discredit the above. The truth is what was posted.

 

[davewhite04]

Yes and I understood what I was reading. I'm sorry that you don't. They are debunking the claims made in Explore Evolution, and other creationist literature. This is what is said immediately before the quote that you pulled.

I saw, now and replied.

 

[davewhite04]

i didn't put you on ignore i thought you had put me on ignore.

 

[zgmc]

on ignore, guess the guy expected to blind me with a 10metre page of text that would try and discredit the above. The truth is what was posted.

So you are admitting that you misunderstood? I am not going to put anyone on ignore. Whats the point of that?

 

[davewhite04]

So you are admitting that you misunderstood? I am not going to put anyone on ignore. Whats the point of that?

because believe it or not, there's a lot of creeps on the web, the type i like to avoid, i mean the options there for a reason right? Everything on the planet came about through evolution, I went on my "human" rant, so switched to a human specific place in time.

 

[zgmc]

because believe it or not, there's a lot of creeps on the web, the type i like to avoid, i mean the options there for a reason right? Everything on the planet came about through evolution, I went on my "human" rant, so switched to a human specific place in time.

Fair enough. Your post that included something about 6000 years made it seem like you were a young earth creationist. I am glad to see that this is not the case.

 

[davewhite04]

Fair enough. Your post that included something about 6000 years made it seem like you were a young earth creationist. I am glad to see that this is not the case.

lol i was many years ago there's hope for everyone...

 

[James R]

Moderator notice: leopold has 24 hours to respond to matters raised earlier in this thread at the time of his last ban. He has been informed in a private conversation of exactly what is needed to avoid a further 2 week ban from sciforums.