Evolutionists, explain..

[Breathe]

If I had to bet one way or the other, my money would be on him being a Poe. Regardless of his intentions, though, I figure that interacting with him might be useful for the people who read it. Even if he isn't being sincere, there are people who sincerely believe the sorts of things he's saying.

Ditto. Sometimes a helpful message can come from seemingly unlikely sources and actions.

 

[outhouse]

No, no, no you must understand.

Looking in a mirror?



Brother evolution is fact. :yes:


It is creation that is outlawed from children's minds in science classes.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Hardly “true bats,” they didn’t have anything that resembled wings.

Then why do evolutionists insist on them being bats? If they had nothing that resembled wings then what's to say they weren't a different species? Also where is the transition from "hardly true bats" to "true bats"? Did the wings just sprout out of nowhere?

 

[Breathe]

Infinite monkey theorem. Anyway, yes infinity is kind of unnecessary. But 600 million years wouldn't even give a monkey time to do it. The chance of replicating even one page would be very impossibly unlikely.

Short answer: nah.

No, no, no you must understand.
Leave out the classifications and all that stuff, I am talking about how similar something look to something else.

You're so blatantly transparent.

Just because something looks like something else, you can't say that it is related to it. We (humans, apes, animals) all live in the same world. Therefore, we must have the same kind of apparatuses to live, right? We all need hands to grab, legs to move about on and eyes to see. (Yes, I am aware that there are fish in the world, and yes am also aware that other species without these things exist )

Genetics. Heard of it?

Are you also a gravitationalist?

Gravity, pfftt; who needs gravity when we have intelligent falling?

 

[Sir_Loin]

There is no such thing as a evolutionist

Evolutionist, as in someone who believes in the biological process of evolution.
It's in the dictionary. A gravitationalist would be absurd because everyone knows gravity exists. IT'S A LAW. Evolution is not a law, it's a theory.

So yes, I'm right. But if you would prefer "Darwinist" then fine.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Infinite monkey theorem. Anyway, yes infinity is kind of unnecessary. But 600 million years wouldn't even give a monkey time to do it. The chance of replicating even one page would be very impossibly unlikely.



No, no, no you must understand.
Leave out the classifications and all that stuff, I am talking about how similar something look to something else.
I went to the Science Museum in London quite a while ago now. I entered the main hall and the first thing I see is the skull of a New World Monkey. By the side of that there is the skull of an Old World monkey. To the right of that was the skull of an ape; and ultimately we arrive at the skull of a man. The skulls of the monkeys looked like monkey skulls to me- ANIMAL skulls. And the skull of the man's skull looked like a human skull.. Just because something looks like something else, you can't say that it is related to it. We (humans, apes, animals) all live in the same world. Therefore, we must have the same kind of apparatuses to live, right? We all need hands to grab, legs to move about on and eyes to see. (Yes, I am aware that there are fish in the world, and yes am also aware that other species without these things exist )

So in other words, if you leave out the detailed systematic analysis and just take a casual uneductated view, then we can talk in general terms such as 'kinds' rather than definite terms such as 'species?' Meh, I prefer to KNOW what I'm talking about rather than just speaking about my impressions.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Evolutionist, as in someone who believes in the biological process of evolution.
It's in the dictionary. A gravitationalist would be absurd because everyone knows gravity exists. IT'S A LAW. Evolution is not a law, it's a theory.

So yes, I'm right. But if you would prefer "Darwinist" then fine.

Actually, both evolution and gravitiation are both theories and both laws. Why do you not seek knowledge?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Actually, both evolution and gravitiation are both theories and both laws. Why do you not seek knowledge?

The Law of Gravity is undisputed, whatever religion or view you have.
The Theory of Evolution is disputed, it is not a law because there are many different opinions on how man became as he is today.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The Law of Gravity is undisputed, whatever religion or view you have.
The Theory of Evolution is disputed, it is not a law because there are many different opinions on how man became as he is today.

Evolution is only disputed by fundamentalist religionists.

 

[Agnostic75]

Evolutionists say that life began in the Precambrian layer, which was to have ended 600 million years ago. When we visit the Cambrian layer, it is filled with 1000s of fossils and all of these creatures are diversified and complex- life immediately and suddenly appears! In the Precambrian layers of the Proterozoic Era, there is no multi-cellular life at all- NONE; NIL; NADA. But in the Cambrian layer life teems; it suddenly bursts into existence- without transistion, without EVOLUTION. So all kinds of life, when seen in geological strata, appears suddenly and animals appear COMPLETE. Bats are true bats, whales are true whales, sharks are true sharks, anything is a genuine whatever it is- it shows no evolving at all, no gradual changes or transitions.

When you see it in geological record, species are just as you see them today..

Have you discussed any of that with some college biology professors? They would know a lot more about what you said than anyone at this forum.

What is your educational background in biology?

 

[Parsimony]

Even if you showed a creationist a transitional fossil, they would just say that it's another "kind". Although it's kind of interesting that you can find fossils with characters between that of fish and amphibians whereas you cannot find any with characters between, say, insects and mammals. That's quite consistent with evolutionary predictions.

 

[Agnostic75]

The Law of Gravity is undisputed, whatever religion or view you have.

The Theory of Evolution is disputed, it is not a law because there are many different opinions on how man became as he is today.

Evolution is not a law, but it is widely accepted as being very probably true by most experts. An article at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation says that one study shows that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept macroevolution.

Consider the following from Wikipedia:

Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature. In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. Generally, there is ambiguity as to where they draw a line on "species", "created kinds", etc. and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution. The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the scientific community.

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[6][18] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community. While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

At the Dover trial, the judge was John E. Jones III. He is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president. In part of his ruling, he said:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

.......one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony.......was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath.......

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

Michael Behe, Ph.D. biochemistry, is a well-known Christian biochemist, and author. He said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp. 71–72

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Then why do evolutionists insist on them being bats? If they had nothing that resembled wings then what's to say they weren't a different species? Also where is the transition from "hardly true bats" to "true bats"? Did the wings just sprout out of nowhere?

LOL first you say their are no intermeditates. Now you are just making stuff up. No one said anyone insisted anything. What I said is this is the first fossile that had any bat like characteristics. Be daft if you insist, but honest discussion does reqier honesty.

 

[Agnostic75]

Evolutionists say that life began in the Precambrian layer, which was to have ended 600 million years ago. When we visit the Cambrian layer, it is filled with 1000s of fossils and all of these creatures are diversified and complex - life immediately and suddenly appears! In the Precambrian layers of the Proterozoic Era, there is no multi-cellular life at all- NONE; NIL; NADA. But in the Cambrian layer life teems; it suddenly bursts into existence- without transistion, without EVOLUTION. So all kinds of life, when seen in geological strata, appears suddenly and animals appear COMPLETE. Bats are true bats, whales are true whales, sharks are true sharks, anything is a genuine whatever it is- it shows no evolving at all, no gradual changes or transitions.

In an article at Another Cambrian Discovery Discredits Evolution, a creationist expert uses similar arguments, but most experts disagree with him, including PZ Myers, who discredits that creationist expert in an article at Do the creationist shuffle and twist! – Pharyngula.

 

[Alceste]

Evolutionists say that life began in the Precambrian layer, which was to have ended 600 million years ago. When we visit the Cambrian layer, it is filled with 1000s of fossils and all of these creatures are diversified and complex- life immediately and suddenly appears! In the Precambrian layers of the Proterozoic Era, there is no multi-cellular life at all- NONE; NIL; NADA. But in the Cambrian layer life teems; it suddenly bursts into existence- without transistion, without EVOLUTION. So all kinds of life, when seen in geological strata, appears suddenly and animals appear COMPLETE. Bats are true bats, whales are true whales, sharks are true sharks, anything is a genuine whatever it is- it shows no evolving at all, no gradual changes or transitions.

When you see it in geological record, species are just as you see them today..

Everything you just wrote is factually incorrect. That makes it hard to know where to start. Suffice it to say, I have no problem understanding the precambrian and cambrian era in the context of evolution. We covered it in high school biology, and I'm also a big fan of Stephen J Gould.

I don't think it's worth the bother to explain anything to you though unless you are willing to accept that everything you just said is factually incorrect. Are you? Do a quick google, wikipedia, whatever - any non-creationist source of objective data will do - and familiarize yourself with the facts, then I'd love to discuss explosive periods of evolution with you.

 

[Alceste]

I don't understand why some people believe something that is impossible can be achieved with a certain amount of time- even millions of years. (Don't get me wrong, I believe certain things can happen given an infinite amount of time)
It's like the Infinite monkey theorem in where it is stated that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard will end up typing up the complete works of Shakespeare. In theory, I agree, it could be possible, but we're talking about an INFINITE not a LIMITED or CERTAIN amount of time (600 million years)

Anyway, I digress...

Evolutionists are deceived by their own principles of arrangements. Today, on this Earth, we have Shetland Ponies. And then, on the other hand, we can observe the tremendous Clydesdale horses. But between these two creatures are intermediate forms all the way through. We have the zebra, the bronco, the saddle horse, the Arabian horse, and the Percheron! They are all here, all in the same kind (but not the same species or transitional species as evolutionists so commonly mistake when they find two similar fossils).
Let's suppose that all the animals I mentioned above die and get buried in the mud and the aforementioned mud hardens. 10 million years from now, men digging in that mud (let's forget about Social Media reports and other record-keeping for now) find the fossil skeletons of the animals. "Oh Lord!", says the Evolutionist, "this is a fantastic case for Darwinism!" "Look here, a little Shetlandius Poniescus (Shetland Pony), look there the great Clydesdalesus (Clydesdale). The other man says, "Yes! This small one must have evolved into these medium sized ones, and then into a great big beast!"

^That is a classic example and to that I say: "No, that did not happen". They were all contemporary. That's my point.
I then proceed to log-on to my iPhone 976S (This is the future after all!) and go to the religious forums and begin a debate only to be confronted by the two men in the story told above who then proceed to try and defend their point.

Setting aside your once again factually incorrect claims (all horses are the species caballus - what Clydesdale and Shetland Ponies are "breeds", or sub-species, not species), let's go with your logic.

You begin by affirming you believe the "impossible" becomes possible given an infinite amount of time.

Given an infinite amount of time, if the "impossible" were to happen, it would necessarily occur at a certain point in the given (infinite) time frame. Correct?

 

[Sir_Loin]

You begin by affirming you believe the "impossible" becomes possible given an infinite amount of time.

*certain things

Oh I do feel like Susan Boyle at a beauty contest.
I believe you guys win this one?
However, I do have some more questions (curious atheist mind)

 

[Alceste]

Evolutionist, as in someone who believes in the biological process of evolution.
It's in the dictionary. A gravitationalist would be absurd because everyone knows gravity exists. IT'S A LAW. Evolution is not a law, it's a theory.

So yes, I'm right. But if you would prefer "Darwinist" then fine.

Gravitation - the phenomenon itself, not the formula that calculates how fast things fall - is also a theory, and one with much less clarity and evidence and a lot more controversy among scientists than evolution.

Do you ever fact check yourself before posting? I do, ask the time. Keeps me from making really absurd claims. I hate losing debates, and the quickest way to do that is to be wrong in your factual assertions.

Anyway, here's the source I just used to fact check this post.
Text : Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? | The Happy Scientist

 

[Alceste]

*certain things

Oh I do feel like Susan Boyle at a beauty contest.
I believe you guys win this one?
However, I do have some more questions (curious atheist mind)

Is that a yes? Even in an infinite time span, if something were to occur, it would happen at a certain point? Say, for example, the "impossible" might happen a billion years after the formation of the earth, which would occur at another given point in the infinite timeline (before which the concept of a year would have no meaning anyway). We're still saying that we have an infinite amount of time, remember, we're just defining two points on the timeline: the formation of the earth and the first signs of life.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Is that a yes? Even in an infinite time span, if something were to occur, it would happen at a certain point?

Are we using the Monkey Theory?
If so, as I said, certain things, such as typing out a third of a page of Shakespeare's works may be possible given an infinite amount of time.
But giving a monkey infinite amount of time to write out the complete works of Shakespeare would never ever happen.
It does depend on what we're talking about, however.