Vast sheet erosion which we see truncating layers of sediments is a feature of the post-Deluge regression.
Not Acknowledging the Theory of Evolution
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
You post lies, or at best grossly invalid information.
I call you on it.
You then call me a nasty little creature.
True, but I am an accurate, honest, nasty little creature. Do you continue to deny the existence of 'fossil' landscapes? If so, on what basis do you do so? If not, why did you post the lie in the first place?
*************
M*W: I can't believe he's started this shit again! Moderators... yoo hoo!
Again IAC, how long did it take for every layer of sediment to form which in today's geologic column, starting from the first day of the rain.
Also, were the majority of sediment pancake layers formed during the actual flood, or during the regression of the waters?
How many layers of sediment existed at the very point when the waters began to receed?
Also, were the majority of sediment pancake layers formed during the actual flood, or during the regression of the waters?
How many layers of sediment existed at the very point when the waters began to receed?
All the dinosaur fossils are far above the Grand Canyon sediments. The young earth model says the Flood killed most of the dinosaurs...and according to their model, all the layers of the Grand Canyon were deposited during the Flood. That is over 1 mile of sediment. The first dinosaur fossils appear in the Chinle formation, which is two formations above the Grand Canyon layers.
How did these dinosaurs survive the deposition phase of the flood, which deposited over 8,000 feet of sediment before we see the first dinosaur fossil? Young earth creation science explanations fail to offer a valid explanation of this problem…they make absolutely no sense out of the solid facts of the rock layers.
Of course, we all know that the giant brachiosaurus could swim, and it just swam 8,000 feet up, right IAC? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
How did these dinosaurs survive the deposition phase of the flood, which deposited over 8,000 feet of sediment before we see the first dinosaur fossil? Young earth creation science explanations fail to offer a valid explanation of this problem…they make absolutely no sense out of the solid facts of the rock layers.
Of course, we all know that the giant brachiosaurus could swim, and it just swam 8,000 feet up, right IAC? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Last edited:
correct
alternatively the question could be why does a new species of life utilize a different set of chemical information known as DNA (in other words DNA could just as easily be the effect and not the cause)
I fail to see how the information you are offering is of any value outside of the tentative, since there is no piece of info from the school of reductionism on what life essentially is, much less something as complex as a dog or cat (what to speak of how you can take a cat and make a dog out of it, simply by reassembling the essential ingredients of a cat)
Prince James:
grounded in what?
Liklihoods?
Still makes it essentially theoretical, yes?
are you advocating that the contemporary view is that they now know they will never know?
given that such a conviction requires a clearly evidenced idea how life evolved from matter, or even how one genus evolves into another, its not clear why you advocate it as the most obvious
its actually any field of knowledge that moves on the dynamic of hypothesis (ie anything under the banner of 'empiricism')
you can make reasonable judgments, but since such judgments rely solely on the fund of knowledge at hand, they are firmly classified as theories
clearly related or constructed out of a similar blueprint?
usually you make bold statements like this it indicates you have nothing to say that appeals to logic, but rather a string of ad homs and the like.
lets see then
You open with the statement that I am making an appeal to ignorance
lets see if you actually address any thing in my post
clearly?
Are we allowed to ask for evidence your claims or should we just accept them on faith?
then its not clear why you disagree with my statement that the direct perception involves not the observation (or even clear understanding, given the constant reshuffling of the fossil record presented by science) of one genus moving into another one but the reapplication of tentative claims on what is held as evidence (after all the fossils haven't changed - or at least not as much as the understandings of scientists in the field in the past 100 years - or in the next 100 years too I could add ....)
are you saying that the notion of abiogenesis ludicrous?
its interesting how you admit that science does not know, yet write off suggestions of alternatives as appeals to nutcases and the like (which BTW is a classic ad hom since you haven't indicated how you are right or even how I am wrong - unless of course we accept that anyone who disagrees with the supremely omniscient skinwalker is obviously wrong)
- in other words it seems that even though you don't know. you are adamant that your 'favourite 'ology' knows
Last edited by a moderator:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
SkinWalker said:
You may ask, and in anticipation that you do ask here are a few instances:
Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.
Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 12:1-16.
Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.
Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.
Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.
Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
Once you've studied them thoroughly would you come back and summarise your revised understanding?
LG, why is it that the largest known genome belongs to the single-celled amoeba Amoeba dubia, with over 6 billion base pairs, while humans only have about 3 billions base pairs?
I'm just curious LG, please explain to me the differences between dogs and cats, because I don't see many.
I'm just curious LG, please explain to me the differences between dogs and cats, because I don't see many.
LightGigantic:
Yes, tremendous likelyhoods, as all available evidence points towards this hypothesis over its rivals. But yes, it is not properly fact.
No. That is absurd. Simply that systems with minor amounts of rules + time can make tremendous amounts of diversity. In essence, one can theoretically get life from non-life through computationally irreducible multiplications based on axioms built into the structure of the molecules and such that compose organic life and which produce self-sustaining molecules which reproduce and diversify according to the demands of the enviroment wedded to the sexual advantage this gives them.
The imperfection of life implies against a perfect creator, which is assumed when we discuss God. If a non-perfect creator, than we are discussing a contingent being, which brings us back to origins again.
Agreed. Empirical observation is subsequent to revisions. It is not true philosophical knowledge in that sense. Accordingly, this is why I am a philosopher and not a science. I cannot be bothered with contingent things.
Agreed.
All evidence implies a non-existence of a creator, in as much as no such creator is known to be possible, nor has said creator given any evidence of its existence to present itself as real.
Yes, tremendous likelyhoods, as all available evidence points towards this hypothesis over its rivals. But yes, it is not properly fact.
No. That is absurd. Simply that systems with minor amounts of rules + time can make tremendous amounts of diversity. In essence, one can theoretically get life from non-life through computationally irreducible multiplications based on axioms built into the structure of the molecules and such that compose organic life and which produce self-sustaining molecules which reproduce and diversify according to the demands of the enviroment wedded to the sexual advantage this gives them.
The imperfection of life implies against a perfect creator, which is assumed when we discuss God. If a non-perfect creator, than we are discussing a contingent being, which brings us back to origins again.
Agreed. Empirical observation is subsequent to revisions. It is not true philosophical knowledge in that sense. Accordingly, this is why I am a philosopher and not a science. I cannot be bothered with contingent things.
Agreed.
All evidence implies a non-existence of a creator, in as much as no such creator is known to be possible, nor has said creator given any evidence of its existence to present itself as real.
LightGigantic:
As you might be interested, I proposed your question of evolution proof of genus divergance and such to the biology section.
As you might be interested, I proposed your question of evolution proof of genus divergance and such to the biology section.
Simply because evolution is all around us and not something to be brought up by the Bible.
And in fact we shouldn't call it evolution but call it change, and there are many reports of changes in the Bible.
As soon as something is imperfect it is subject to change. This change is influenced by far more factors than survival and can be driven into far more directions than progress (as evolution).
The Bible isn't a science book, it is in part a symbolic tale of what happened that lead us where we are. The snake can be a symbol of person that talked with split tounges, apples could be nourishment, the apple of knowledge could be drugs, the apple of life just might be medicine, it matters what you interpret it as, and how you use that interpretation.
I think the Bible tries to tell us that almost everything was allowed at the beginning, but one thing, and that was to eat from the tree of knowledge (a tree can be a set of something, as it is described also in the Bible (that we are branches of a tree etc.)), for example drugs. But Adam and Eve were fooled by the snake to eat it, and said that surely you would not die.
Be aware that this is only a interpretation that I made up just now (even if I've had it in the back of my head for a while) and I don't necessarily believe it that much myself, but it's good as a example of an interpretation that doesn't have to be that far stretched.
However, you asked why evolution is not described in the Bible, and the simple answer I can give is that it wasn't needed, nor aknowledged by the people living at that time (neither did it have to be).
You truly don't see differences between a dog and a cat?
:m:
Can you make a dog out of a cat?
:m:
Prince James:
ok - now I understand why you posted the link
the problem is that the link works forward from a given axiom whereas to accept evolution one is required to work backwards and anticipate the axiom - in other words you would have a substantial case for evolution if you had an evidenced and repeatable axiom to work with (abiogenesis would be one such axiom)
why is life not perfect?
Iso Invocation: The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.
“
contingent knowledge finds its application in sleeping, eating, mating and defending - unfortunately not even everything in philosophy is free from it
others beg to differ
BG 6.20-23: In the stage of perfection called trance, or samādhi, one's mind is completely restrained from material mental activities by practice of yoga. This perfection is characterized by one's ability to see the self by the pure mind and to relish and rejoice in the self. In that joyous state, one is situated in boundless transcendental happiness, realized through transcendental senses. Established thus, one never departs from the truth, and upon gaining this he thinks there is no greater gain. Being situated in such a position, one is never shaken, even in the midst of greatest difficulty. This indeed is actual freedom from all miseries arising from material contact.
Great - I am waiting in anticipation
(It would be much appreciated if you could present substantial information and not merely a list of footnotes and references)
the next question is whether you can actually present the findings of this weighty bibliography or if you are brainwashed?
Last edited by a moderator:
Since Ophiolite is a geologist, I'd be willing to bet he could with ease. But why bother? You're the one making the claim that there's no evidence for the observation of evolution. What he did was give the citations to a PILE of evidence, which is publicly available. The point that has been made is that those that make the public claim that evolution isn't observable are arguing from personal ignorance and expect that because they are personally ignorant and undereducated that, therefore, there must not be evidence for the observation of evolution.
so you are in such an esteemed position that you are not required to back up your claims - I see ...
The claims *are* backed up. The citations above are but a small sample. The claim that I stand by is that evolution is observable in the fossil record. The claim is supported by the nature of stratigraphy and the geologic record along with paleontology. Its also supported by the prediction that if life did not evolve, there would be disconformity in the fossil record. That disconformity does not exist.
I cannot help the fact that you lack an appropriate education. The education is there for you and is public record. Waiting for you to refute in a manner that equates to something more than saying "nana nana boo boo."
I cannot help the fact that you lack an appropriate education. The education is there for you and is public record. Waiting for you to refute in a manner that equates to something more than saying "nana nana boo boo."
this is precisely the point I have been discussing with Prince james - hopefully he will get back within the next several days with a substantial reply
Yeah. I saw you quote a mythical tale to support your mythical tale. The difference in Ophi's citations is that they are sources that contain methodologies that are potentially reproducible by even you. Your myths are superstitions that the intellectual cowards who assert that they are fact will say that only they can know them to be true since they believe. Those that question or doubt their veracity are, to these cowards, simply unable to reproduce the results since they conveniently can't understand the myths.
Circular bullhshit reasoning. Which is what all religious superstition boils down to.
Circular bullhshit reasoning. Which is what all religious superstition boils down to.
Hey LG, nice to talk to you again. It's been a while since I destroyed you in that other thread.
First off, this is the original question I asked you:
I'm just curious LG, please explain to me the differences between dogs and cats, because I don't see many.
Notice the qualifier word "M-A-N-Y." This means that I do see a few differences in cats and dogs, but not M-A-N-Y.
Your response:
Your response implies that I said that I don't see "ANY" differences. See the problem there? Now if I had said, "because I don't see ANY," then your statement would have some merit.
Again, please list for me all the differences you see between these two little cuties.
I see you have conveniently avoided my original question:
"LG, why is it that the largest known genome belongs to the single-celled amoeba Amoeba dubia, with over 6 billion base pairs, while humans only have about 3 billions base pairs?"
Is that because you have no response, or because you just missed it?
Let me add a few more:
1) How do you explain humans being born with tails?
2) Why does mitochondria in a cell have its own DNA?
3) Why do some cats have 38 chromosomes and some have 36?
4) Why do dogs show different chromosome numbers?
First off, this is the original question I asked you:
I'm just curious LG, please explain to me the differences between dogs and cats, because I don't see many.
Notice the qualifier word "M-A-N-Y." This means that I do see a few differences in cats and dogs, but not M-A-N-Y.
Your response:
Your response implies that I said that I don't see "ANY" differences. See the problem there? Now if I had said, "because I don't see ANY," then your statement would have some merit.
Again, please list for me all the differences you see between these two little cuties.
I see you have conveniently avoided my original question:
"LG, why is it that the largest known genome belongs to the single-celled amoeba Amoeba dubia, with over 6 billion base pairs, while humans only have about 3 billions base pairs?"
Is that because you have no response, or because you just missed it?
Let me add a few more:
1) How do you explain humans being born with tails?
2) Why does mitochondria in a cell have its own DNA?
3) Why do some cats have 38 chromosomes and some have 36?
4) Why do dogs show different chromosome numbers?
Last edited:
LightGigantic:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65021
That is the aforementioned thread. Keep an eye on it, if you might.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65021
That is the aforementioned thread. Keep an eye on it, if you might.