Audie
Veteran Member
Like this..not one word of what you said there about the Coelacanth is
accurate, the entire sentence, wrong . Zero.
"You dont have to know about..." Not to get a zero, no.
Does it not embarrass you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
Like this..not one word of what you said there about the Coelacanth is
accurate, the entire sentence, wrong . Zero.
"You dont have to know about..." Not to get a zero, no.
Does it not embarrass you?
james bond
Well-Known Member
Well, not exactly. Its nearest known relatives were all extinct. ( still are!)
They were fresh water creatures, disappeared at the end of the cretaceous.
Nobody knew our coelacanth had ever existed. Deep water marine fish
are next to impossible to fossilize, and not necessarily easy to find alive.
It was a sensation of course, but the way creationists get confused over its
significance and value to science is a real face-palm.
It should be you who should be embarrassed in not knowing about fossil layers and living fossils. Do you even know what you are talking about? It's not I, but you who should be embarrassed in how wrong you are.
Living fossils was a term coined by Charles Darwin in 1859. He was referring to living species that look just like their ancestors of millions of years ago. Living fossils are found throughout the fossil layers and they are not ODDITIES as you think. It's just odd because they do not exist anymore today (until someone finds one such as tiktaalik and it won't have changed much from the fossil). Almost every "family" of living animal has a remarkably similar ancestor preserved deep in the fossil record. I can't help it if you believe in atheist scientist mythology. Look at JLB Smith and how he behaved when he heard about the coelacanth found in 1938. If he only knew.
We have mollusks, wasps, dragonfly nymph, sand dollars, sycamore, dragonfly, brittlestar, sea lily, stromatolite and more throughout the fossil layers. All of these are common living fossils. We have trees that exist today going through them. It goes to show that the chronological earth layers of atheist scientists are wrong.
james bond
Well-Known Member
So what's really important? It's not about finding a coelacanth or even tiktaalik and putting it in an aquarium like JLB Smith. I doubt they can replicate its environment. It's about conservation of these scarce creatures and using our resources smartly. It's about protecting our water and our air. It's not about blaming humans for CO2. One has to know what they are doing and the atheist scientists don't.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Not CB930 again.
Claim CB930:
Some species, such as the tuatara, horseshoe crab, cockroach, ginkgo, and coelacanth, are "fossil species." They have not evolved for millions of years.
Source:
Whitcomb, John C. Jr. and Henry M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Philadephia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 176-180.
Response:
- The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically. In fact, in an unchanging environment, stabilizing selection would tend to keep an organism largely unchanged. Many environments around today are not greatly different from environments of millions of years ago.
- Some so-called fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species of various shapes and sizes. Species may also evolve in ways that are not obvious. For example, the immune system of horseshoe crabs today is probably quite different from that of horseshoe crabs of millions of years ago.
Not CC331 again.
Claim CC331:
Polystrate fossil trees show tree trunks passing through many layers and several meters of sediments. Obviously, the sediments must have been laid down suddenly, not at the gradual rates proposed by uniformitarian geology.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 107-108.
Berg, Randy S., 2005. The "fossil forests" of Nova Scotia: A review of the literature. http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil Trees of Nova Scotia.htm
Response:
- Sudden deposition is not a problem for uniformitarian geology. Single floods can deposit sediments up to several feet thick. Furthermore, trees buried in such sediments do not die and decay immediately; the trunks can remain there for years or even decades.
MacRae, Andrew, 1994. "Polystrate" tree fossils. "Polystrate" Tree Fossils
Birkeland, Bill, 2004, 27 Jan. Fossil soils (paleosols) at Joggins. http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000116.html#7
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Geologic Column
Further Reading:
Frey, Robert W., 1982. Sedimentology photo. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 52(2): 614.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is exceedingly boring ... haven't you any arguments and examples that are not so err ... fossilized, so to speak?
You said and i quote "From what I've read, these super weeds, i.e. resistant to Roundup or other herbicides, have created new species."
How he used it is immaterial, he saved over a billion lives, and you still seem to resent this.
And creationist nut jobs who have gripped bitterly since their discovery.
Your evidence for this bold statement is what. Don't worry, I'll not be expecting an answer
Audie
Veteran Member
Ok! So you write complete nonsense, as I pointed out, and far from wondering
where you went off the rail, asking or investigating, you try to turn it around
that I dont know what I am talking about!
Then add in another dazzling demonstration of "facile",
and, "utter confusion".
Whattaguy. Creationism (the trailer park of human
intellect) is a curious mentality.
Oh, if you live in a trailer park, no offense or anything.
It is just that creationism / xtian fundyism is negatively
correlated with education and income. Hence "trailer
park / intellect.
Chronic, but perhaps not incurable. Good luck.
Audie
Veteran Member
"New species". Honestly. Still in the kiddie pool.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Heh. Aren't you the one being boring as hell just copying and pasting arguments from the Talk Origins archive and not giving any credit while you fawn oh no, not this again? You don't even know what you are talking about. Please explain in your own words instead of some stupid claim and number.
Sure, these are problems for evos. I said most of the living creatures today are found in all the fossil layers. If found, some are considered to be living fossils and the atheist scientists claim they have been extinct for millions of years. Nothing of the kind. These living fossils have nothing to do with chronology. They aren't millions of years old as claimed by atheist scientists. These living fossils will continue to be found. Most aren't rare, but common. If we find some thing like tiktaalik still alive, then it's rare because they were an extinct species. Not rare because they're a missing link or are millions of years old. We find these living fossils all the time, and atheist scientists think they're rare because they are millions or years old or they could be missing links. Less and less people will believe these claims because we'll keep finding these "living fossils."
One of the most stupidest claims made by atheist scientists today is that reptiles do not exist anymore. They've been replaced by dinosaurs.
.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Speciation is microevolution as I said before. Do you not understand micro vs macro?
How Borlaug used it helps my argument.
Millions of years old certainly is nutty.
Even if handed the truth on a silver platter, you'll not accept it. That's nutty if you ask me.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Ok! So you write complete nonsense, as I pointed out, and far from wondering
where you went off the rail, asking or investigating, you try to turn it around
that I dont know what I am talking about!
Then add in another dazzling demonstration of "facile",
and, "utter confusion".
Whattaguy. Creationism (the trailer park of human
intellect) is a curious mentality.
Oh, if you live in a trailer park, no offense or anything.
It is just that creationism / xtian fundyism is negatively
correlated with education and income. Hence "trailer
park / intellect.
Chronic, but perhaps not incurable. Good luck.
It's true. You can't even explain what you are referring to or explain your points while I have patiently explained coelacanth and how it isn't a transitional form, but another living creature and fossil found. What Darwin called a living fossil. JLB Smith acted like a loon and was foaming at the mouth in 1938 when he heard one was found in a fish market. There is a documentary on this, but the audio track has been removed. I wonder why. I would guess it's atheist scientists hiding their embarrassment. You can read in the link below to see the controversy.
You didn't know any of this or else you would have explained. All the while bragging you got an 'A' in vertebrae class. How is that related to what I brought up? Don't go away mad. Just go away without an explanation.
"The mingled destinies of coelacanths and men have not brought out the best in the latter. Ambition, jealousy, and opportunistic moralizing have plagued the coelacanth since its 1938 "discovery." First, there was an uneasy tension between JLB Smith and Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer who had spotted the fish on the trawler Nerine in December 1938, and sent Smith the sketch that led to its identification. Courtenay-Latimer had been unable to preserve the internal organs in the summer heat and without these Smith had been hard put to prove the fish's ancient identity to everyone's satisfaction. Smith and Courtenay-Latimer gave slightly different accounts of their first meeting on his arrival in East London to see the specimen, his implied that she was somewhat indifferent to the discovery. "
DINOFISH.com - COELACANTH Controversies
Yes but apparently you don't.
Don't talk garbage, you have done nothing but disparage Borlaug and his work ever since i first mentioned his success at creating gm foods that have saved more than religion has killed.
And still gripping
Truth : that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
Its the fact or reality where you fail
james bond
Well-Known Member
Sure I do. Micro happens like the super weeds, but macro doesn't happen. It's just made up fluff which suckered a lot of people, but more and more people do not believe it since 2011.
There is nothing for me to grip about. While there is plenty for atheists and atheist scientists to grip about. Why do atheists keep talking about religion and atheist science? Atheist science is boring and does not help me to do well with the opposite sex. I don't talk about religion, science and Borlaug in real life unless the subject comes up. Mostly, I discuss here. However, I will discuss the dangers of GMO foods and how it should be labeled
.I would add God's word to the definition of truth.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of truth
plural truths play \ˈtrüt͟hz, ˈtrüths\
1 a (1) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY
(2) : the state of being the case : FACT
(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
- truths of thermodynamics
2 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
b chiefly British : TRUE 2
c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
3 a : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
b archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
It just goes to show that I am right and you are wrong. It even says "capitalized." Thus, it could be that you are referring to god of the Earth, Satan
.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I wanted to opine on the fossil record according to creation science. It shows what paleontologists have discovered and the information derived from them. The latter part is debatable as we know since one is described with an atheist worldview while the other is described from a creation worldview. Thus, the twain shall never meet. The creation scientists refer to the Bible and it helps to explain what God intended we learn from the fossil record and that is the history of living creatures. It shows all the creatures that exist today and existed in the past even though they may be extinct. Creation scientists doubt the accuracy of paleontology and their interpretation of the fossil record. The coelacanth is a good example. The atheist scientists like JLB Smith were excited and thought they made history to discover they were still living. Coelacanths were 70 million years old and thought to be the first fish to walk on land back in the 1930s. However, after studying the live fish, they found they were like the fossils and did not walk nor have "feet." It just goes to show that the fossils were not that old and using the layers to date other fossils as 70 million years is incorrect. However, atheist scientists keep making up stories to perpetuate their wrong science of evolution.
Sure I do. Micro happens like the super weeds, but macro doesn't happen. It's just made up fluff which suckered a lot of people, but more and more people do not believe it since 2011.
There is nothing for me to grip about. While there is plenty for atheists and atheist scientists to grip about. Why do atheists keep talking about religion and atheist science? Atheist science is boring and does not help me to do well with the opposite sex. I don't talk about religion, science and Borlaug in real life unless the subject comes up. Mostly, I discuss here. However, I will discuss the dangers of GMO foods and how it should be labeled
I would add God's word to the definition of truth.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of truth
plural truths play \ˈtrüt͟hz, ˈtrüths\
1 a (1) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY
(2) : the state of being the case : FACT
(3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true
c : the body of true statements and propositions
- truths of thermodynamics
2 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality
b chiefly British : TRUE 2
c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
3 a : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
b archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
It just goes to show that I am right and you are wrong. It even says "capitalized." Thus, it could be that you are referring to god of the Earth, Satan
Now you are just making stuff up. Macro is simply lots of micro, and that is proven fact. Genetics does not lie.
One thing about fact, it doesnt need your approval
Why keep talking? Because creationists keep making up bs to cover the embarrassment as science makes the gaps they rely on smaller.
So you say an american dictionary says truth is made up? That explains a lot. When you can provide factual evidence of your (or any) gods existence, then provide evidence that he has actually defined anything then you can offer what you call gods word.
Isn't it interesting that oxymoron creation science is never put forward for peer review. Whenever you invoke oxymoron creation science i know what follows is total nonsense so i never bothered reading it
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Why waste my time and effort? Someone has already compiled good answers to your questions, perfectly anticipating them. I have no need to demonstrate my perspicacity, I am happy to rest upon Talk Origin having demonstrated your lack of same.
The organisms still exist and have not changed, but since proper taxonomy does not permit biphyletic groupings the class Reptilia is illegal and must be replaced with Sauropsida, else birds (Aves) would have to be labeled as reptiles.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I provide the hard evidence as a dictionary and you can't accept it. That's stupid. We can all use God's word is true. OECd believe God created evolution.
And then you bring up genetics does not lie. What does that mean? We do know that evos lie such as Lucy, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, etc.
You provide no evidence that macro is a lot of micro while I discussed tiktaalik and it was a fish. Before tik, evos thought it was coel and coel turned out to be a fish and still living. Why hasn't coel grown legs and feet due to evo? Thus, the evidence backs up fish are fish and amphibians are amphibians.
james bond
Well-Known Member
It's typical Sapiens. He runs away instead of being able to put an argument together in his own words.
Okay, I'll accept biphyletic groupings but it's ridiculous way to explain evolution by making up its own taxonomy. Facts can have different interpretations, but this is clearly evolutionary bias and not credible. The same with having humans become apes.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Run away? No. Just relying on my right to invoke Forrest Gump's fourth rule:
Taxonomy represents evolution, when our knowledge of the critters changes the taxonomy must follow. That's rational not ridiculous, it would be ridiculous and useless to have a taxonomy that is at odds with the state of knowledge of the actual evolutionary relationships.
If you have trouble crediting that humans are the third chimp, please explain what is known of the origins of the human chromosome number two.
Audie
Veteran Member
As Dante put it, Hell is the absence of reason.
james bond
Well-Known Member
TBDW (too boring didn't watch). I already watched FG and it was enough. Life is a box of chocolates means that it was designed.
Your argument on the new taxonomy is circular which is a fallacy. But to explain C #2, creation scientists agree it is there but is a pseudogene, a gene that is of suboptimal design caused by original sin. What explanations do you have?