Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Interesting Point One Of My FB Friends Made

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:16:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

I KNEW IT!

nac
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:54:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do you *actually* find that interesting?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 12:05:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

What about Yannicorns....
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 12:41:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 1:55:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 12:41:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 3:08:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 1:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 12:41:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.

The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 3:20:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 3:08:07 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 1:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 12:41:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 3:27:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 3:20:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:08:07 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 1:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 12:41:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.

Addressed in the point below.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.

If they were we could expect to see at least one example of a transitional form, or a branch species (for example, neanderthals for homo sapiens). I'm not saying we are going to find it with certainty, but finding evidence that would lead to such is much greater than the 2% you depicted, since we have a lot of potential clues that would point to a unicorn existing, none of which have been found.

Someone looking for a human who finds a Neanderthal fossil instead can say they have evidence that a human likely existed if they knew beforehand the anatomy. Which is the case here with dragons and unicorns.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.

Great, then let's delete the science forum.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 3:35:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 3:27:57 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:20:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:08:07 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 1:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 12:41:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.

Addressed in the point below.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.

If they were we could expect to see at least one example of a transitional form, or a branch species (for example, neanderthals for homo sapiens).

No we wouldn't, as only 2% of everything that has existed has fossilized. Thus, we would expect NOT to see it.

I'm not saying we are going to find it with certainty, but finding evidence that would lead to such is much greater than the 2% you depicted, since we have a lot of potential clues that would point to a unicorn existing, none of which have been found.

Well, the 2% figure is in ever geology textbook I have ever read. So, take it up with Geology?


Someone looking for a human who finds a Neanderthal fossil instead can say they have evidence that a human likely existed if they knew beforehand the anatomy. Which is the case here with dragons and unicorns.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.

Great, then let's delete the science forum.

Might as well. Most scientific evidence brought up in them is used to support philosophical conclusions anyway.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 4:00:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 3:35:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:27:57 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:20:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:08:07 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 1:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 12:41:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.

Addressed in the point below.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.

If they were we could expect to see at least one example of a transitional form, or a branch species (for example, neanderthals for homo sapiens).

No we wouldn't, as only 2% of everything that has existed has fossilized. Thus, we would expect NOT to see it.

I'm not saying we are going to find it with certainty, but finding evidence that would lead to such is much greater than the 2% you depicted, since we have a lot of potential clues that would point to a unicorn existing, none of which have been found.

Well, the 2% figure is in ever geology textbook I have ever read. So, take it up with Geology?


Someone looking for a human who finds a Neanderthal fossil instead can say they have evidence that a human likely existed if they knew beforehand the anatomy. Which is the case here with dragons and unicorns.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.

Great, then let's delete the science forum.

Might as well. Most scientific evidence brought up in them is used to support philosophical conclusions anyway.

You completely ignored my point. We're not looking for just 1 species, any of the branch/transitional species would clearly indicate a unicorn existing. So we have many 'opportunities' to spot a species. Furthermore the 2% number is general, and is not representivie of large bony mammals, which fossilize more readily than most.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 4:14:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 4:00:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:35:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:27:57 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:20:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:08:07 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 1:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 12:41:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.

Addressed in the point below.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.

If they were we could expect to see at least one example of a transitional form, or a branch species (for example, neanderthals for homo sapiens).

No we wouldn't, as only 2% of everything that has existed has fossilized. Thus, we would expect NOT to see it.

I'm not saying we are going to find it with certainty, but finding evidence that would lead to such is much greater than the 2% you depicted, since we have a lot of potential clues that would point to a unicorn existing, none of which have been found.

Well, the 2% figure is in ever geology textbook I have ever read. So, take it up with Geology?


Someone looking for a human who finds a Neanderthal fossil instead can say they have evidence that a human likely existed if they knew beforehand the anatomy. Which is the case here with dragons and unicorns.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.

Great, then let's delete the science forum.

Might as well. Most scientific evidence brought up in them is used to support philosophical conclusions anyway.

You completely ignored my point. We're not looking for just 1 species, any of the branch/transitional species would clearly indicate a unicorn existing. So we have many 'opportunities' to spot a species. Furthermore the 2% number is general, and is not representivie of large bony mammals, which fossilize more readily than most.

My friend sad this:

"if your friend on DDO knows anything about the fossilization process he or she would know that it takse very pristine perfect conditions to capture a fossil, it has to get buried by either silt, volcanic ash, mud, water, sand, all that stuff, which is why creatures who lived during mass devestations are fossilized more, (dinosaurs) but without that its is very hard, pretty much a n animal has to be drinking water and get caught in a flash flood and buried, which is pretty rare, as well most animals when they die like to go off to the middle of nowhere and die, cats go underneath porches and sh*t, it is instinctive for animals to find solitude when sick and injured, so they remove them selves from mass popualted areas and go to jungles and forrest, and fossils rarely occur in jungles and forrest because it gets decomposed quicker and jsut turns into fertilizer."
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 4:16:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 4:14:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:00:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:35:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:27:57 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:20:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:08:07 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 1:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 12:41:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.

Addressed in the point below.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.

If they were we could expect to see at least one example of a transitional form, or a branch species (for example, neanderthals for homo sapiens).

No we wouldn't, as only 2% of everything that has existed has fossilized. Thus, we would expect NOT to see it.

I'm not saying we are going to find it with certainty, but finding evidence that would lead to such is much greater than the 2% you depicted, since we have a lot of potential clues that would point to a unicorn existing, none of which have been found.

Well, the 2% figure is in ever geology textbook I have ever read. So, take it up with Geology?


Someone looking for a human who finds a Neanderthal fossil instead can say they have evidence that a human likely existed if they knew beforehand the anatomy. Which is the case here with dragons and unicorns.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.

Great, then let's delete the science forum.

Might as well. Most scientific evidence brought up in them is used to support philosophical conclusions anyway.

You completely ignored my point. We're not looking for just 1 species, any of the branch/transitional species would clearly indicate a unicorn existing. So we have many 'opportunities' to spot a species. Furthermore the 2% number is general, and is not representivie of large bony mammals, which fossilize more readily than most.

My friend sad this:

"if your friend on DDO knows anything about the fossilization process he or she would know that it takse very pristine perfect conditions to capture a fossil, it has to get buried by either silt, volcanic ash, mud, water, sand, all that stuff, which is why creatures who lived during mass devestations are fossilized more, (dinosaurs) but without that its is very hard, pretty much a n animal has to be drinking water and get caught in a flash flood and buried, which is pretty rare, as well most animals when they die like to go off to the middle of nowhere and die, cats go underneath porches and sh*t, it is instinctive for animals to find solitude when sick and injured, so they remove them selves from mass popualted areas and go to jungles and forrest, and fossils rarely occur in jungles and forrest because it gets decomposed quicker and jsut turns into fertilizer."

And that's where your 2% figure comes from, that's pretty much correct.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 4:18:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 4:16:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:14:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:00:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:35:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:27:57 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:20:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:08:07 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 1:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 12:41:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.

Addressed in the point below.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.

If they were we could expect to see at least one example of a transitional form, or a branch species (for example, neanderthals for homo sapiens).

No we wouldn't, as only 2% of everything that has existed has fossilized. Thus, we would expect NOT to see it.

I'm not saying we are going to find it with certainty, but finding evidence that would lead to such is much greater than the 2% you depicted, since we have a lot of potential clues that would point to a unicorn existing, none of which have been found.

Well, the 2% figure is in ever geology textbook I have ever read. So, take it up with Geology?


Someone looking for a human who finds a Neanderthal fossil instead can say they have evidence that a human likely existed if they knew beforehand the anatomy. Which is the case here with dragons and unicorns.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.

Great, then let's delete the science forum.

Might as well. Most scientific evidence brought up in them is used to support philosophical conclusions anyway.

You completely ignored my point. We're not looking for just 1 species, any of the branch/transitional species would clearly indicate a unicorn existing. So we have many 'opportunities' to spot a species. Furthermore the 2% number is general, and is not representivie of large bony mammals, which fossilize more readily than most.

My friend sad this:

"if your friend on DDO knows anything about the fossilization process he or she would know that it takse very pristine perfect conditions to capture a fossil, it has to get buried by either silt, volcanic ash, mud, water, sand, all that stuff, which is why creatures who lived during mass devestations are fossilized more, (dinosaurs) but without that its is very hard, pretty much a n animal has to be drinking water and get caught in a flash flood and buried, which is pretty rare, as well most animals when they die like to go off to the middle of nowhere and die, cats go underneath porches and sh*t, it is instinctive for animals to find solitude when sick and injured, so they remove them selves from mass popualted areas and go to jungles and forrest, and fossils rarely occur in jungles and forrest because it gets decomposed quicker and jsut turns into fertilizer."

And that's where your 2% figure comes from, that's pretty much correct.

Well, if he is correct, then you argument is refuted. We wouldn't expect any thing to indicate any unicorns, as fossilization is so rare.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 4:25:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 4:18:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:16:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:14:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:00:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:35:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:27:57 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:20:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:08:07 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 1:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 12:41:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.

Addressed in the point below.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.

If they were we could expect to see at least one example of a transitional form, or a branch species (for example, neanderthals for homo sapiens).

No we wouldn't, as only 2% of everything that has existed has fossilized. Thus, we would expect NOT to see it.

I'm not saying we are going to find it with certainty, but finding evidence that would lead to such is much greater than the 2% you depicted, since we have a lot of potential clues that would point to a unicorn existing, none of which have been found.

Well, the 2% figure is in ever geology textbook I have ever read. So, take it up with Geology?


Someone looking for a human who finds a Neanderthal fossil instead can say they have evidence that a human likely existed if they knew beforehand the anatomy. Which is the case here with dragons and unicorns.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.

Great, then let's delete the science forum.

Might as well. Most scientific evidence brought up in them is used to support philosophical conclusions anyway.

You completely ignored my point. We're not looking for just 1 species, any of the branch/transitional species would clearly indicate a unicorn existing. So we have many 'opportunities' to spot a species. Furthermore the 2% number is general, and is not representivie of large bony mammals, which fossilize more readily than most.

My friend sad this:

"if your friend on DDO knows anything about the fossilization process he or she would know that it takse very pristine perfect conditions to capture a fossil, it has to get buried by either silt, volcanic ash, mud, water, sand, all that stuff, which is why creatures who lived during mass devestations are fossilized more, (dinosaurs) but without that its is very hard, pretty much a n animal has to be drinking water and get caught in a flash flood and buried, which is pretty rare, as well most animals when they die like to go off to the middle of nowhere and die, cats go underneath porches and sh*t, it is instinctive for animals to find solitude when sick and injured, so they remove them selves from mass popualted areas and go to jungles and forrest, and fossils rarely occur in jungles and forrest because it gets decomposed quicker and jsut turns into fertilizer."

And that's where your 2% figure comes from, that's pretty much correct.

Well, if he is correct, then you argument is refuted. We wouldn't expect any thing to indicate any unicorns, as fossilization is so rare.

Um, the argument stands just fine, I only argued that finding evidence that a unicorn ever existed is much higher than is considered a priori by your 2% figure. For example, we have quite good fossil chronologies of the apes (including humans), whales, horses (which presumably include 'unicorns'), cats (including lions, tigers) and birds.... to name a few. All this in spite of the fact that fossilization is so rare.

The empirical evidence seems to disagree with your notion that we will find zero evidence of unicorns, or any of it's cousin/transitional species. Furthermore if we consider that the unicorn and it's ancestors in this case is adapted for open plains (since horses generally are), your jungle argument fails, as surely at least a significant fraction of these would have died in lesser populated areas, not in jungles etc.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 4:45:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Lol, you guys, arguing about unicorns in the philosophy section.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 4:46:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 4:25:12 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:18:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:16:52 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:14:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:00:47 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:35:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:27:57 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:20:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 3:08:07 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 1:55:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 12:41:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.

Addressed in the point below.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.

If they were we could expect to see at least one example of a transitional form, or a branch species (for example, neanderthals for homo sapiens).

No we wouldn't, as only 2% of everything that has existed has fossilized. Thus, we would expect NOT to see it.

I'm not saying we are going to find it with certainty, but finding evidence that would lead to such is much greater than the 2% you depicted, since we have a lot of potential clues that would point to a unicorn existing, none of which have been found.

Well, the 2% figure is in ever geology textbook I have ever read. So, take it up with Geology?


Someone looking for a human who finds a Neanderthal fossil instead can say they have evidence that a human likely existed if they knew beforehand the anatomy. Which is the case here with dragons and unicorns.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.

Great, then let's delete the science forum.

Might as well. Most scientific evidence brought up in them is used to support philosophical conclusions anyway.

You completely ignored my point. We're not looking for just 1 species, any of the branch/transitional species would clearly indicate a unicorn existing. So we have many 'opportunities' to spot a species. Furthermore the 2% number is general, and is not representivie of large bony mammals, which fossilize more readily than most.

My friend sad this:

"if your friend on DDO knows anything about the fossilization process he or she would know that it takse very pristine perfect conditions to capture a fossil, it has to get buried by either silt, volcanic ash, mud, water, sand, all that stuff, which is why creatures who lived during mass devestations are fossilized more, (dinosaurs) but without that its is very hard, pretty much a n animal has to be drinking water and get caught in a flash flood and buried, which is pretty rare, as well most animals when they die like to go off to the middle of nowhere and die, cats go underneath porches and sh*t, it is instinctive for animals to find solitude when sick and injured, so they remove them selves from mass popualted areas and go to jungles and forrest, and fossils rarely occur in jungles and forrest because it gets decomposed quicker and jsut turns into fertilizer."

And that's where your 2% figure comes from, that's pretty much correct.

Well, if he is correct, then you argument is refuted. We wouldn't expect any thing to indicate any unicorns, as fossilization is so rare.

Um, the argument stands just fine, I only argued that finding evidence that a unicorn ever existed is much higher than is considered a priori by your 2% figure. For example, we have quite good fossil chronologies of the apes (including humans), whales, horses (which presumably include 'unicorns'), cats (including lions, tigers) and birds.... to name a few. All this in spite of the fact that fossilization is so rare.

Yes, but the whole argument in the first place is that "all this" is really just a small fraction..


The empirical evidence seems to disagree with your notion that we will find zero evidence of unicorns, or any of it's cousin/transitional species.

How so? Just because we know a lot about the small fraction of species you mentioned, doesn't mean much.

Furthermore if we consider that the unicorn and it's ancestors in this case is adapted for open plains (since horses generally are), your jungle argument fails, as surely at least a significant fraction of these would have died in lesser populated areas, not in jungles etc.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 5:45:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.

Addressed in the point below.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.

If they were we could expect to see at least one example of a transitional form, or a branch species (for example, neanderthals for homo sapiens).

No we wouldn't, as only 2% of everything that has existed has fossilized. Thus, we would expect NOT to see it.

I'm not saying we are going to find it with certainty, but finding evidence that would lead to such is much greater than the 2% you depicted, since we have a lot of potential clues that would point to a unicorn existing, none of which have been found.

Well, the 2% figure is in ever geology textbook I have ever read. So, take it up with Geology?


Someone looking for a human who finds a Neanderthal fossil instead can say they have evidence that a human likely existed if they knew beforehand the anatomy. Which is the case here with dragons and unicorns.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.

Great, then let's delete the science forum.

Might as well. Most scientific evidence brought up in them is used to support philosophical conclusions anyway.

You completely ignored my point. We're not looking for just 1 species, any of the branch/transitional species would clearly indicate a unicorn existing. So we have many 'opportunities' to spot a species. Furthermore the 2% number is general, and is not representivie of large bony mammals, which fossilize more readily than most.

My friend sad this:

"if your friend on DDO knows anything about the fossilization process he or she would know that it takse very pristine perfect conditions to capture a fossil, it has to get buried by either silt, volcanic ash, mud, water, sand, all that stuff, which is why creatures who lived during mass devestations are fossilized more, (dinosaurs) but without that its is very hard, pretty much a n animal has to be drinking water and get caught in a flash flood and buried, which is pretty rare, as well most animals when they die like to go off to the middle of nowhere and die, cats go underneath porches and sh*t, it is instinctive for animals to find solitude when sick and injured, so they remove them selves from mass popualted areas and go to jungles and forrest, and fossils rarely occur in jungles and forrest because it gets decomposed quicker and jsut turns into fertilizer."

And that's where your 2% figure comes from, that's pretty much correct.

Well, if he is correct, then you argument is refuted. We wouldn't expect any thing to indicate any unicorns, as fossilization is so rare.

Um, the argument stands just fine, I only argued that finding evidence that a unicorn ever existed is much higher than is considered a priori by your 2% figure. For example, we have quite good fossil chronologies of the apes (including humans), whales, horses (which presumably include 'unicorns'), cats (including lions, tigers) and birds.... to name a few. All this in spite of the fact that fossilization is so rare.

Yes, but the whole argument in the first place is that "all this" is really just a small fraction..



The empirical evidence seems to disagree with your notion that we will find zero evidence of unicorns, or any of it's cousin/transitional species.

How so? Just because we know a lot about the small fraction of species you mentioned, doesn't mean much.

Furthermore if we consider that the unicorn and it's ancestors in this case is adapted for open plains (since horses generally are), your jungle argument fails, as surely at least a significant fraction of these would have died in lesser populated areas, not in jungles etc.

Since I have provided evidence of very complete geneologies, which you have yet to rebut. Geneologies which by your logic should be scarcely populated. I think it would be fitting that you provide your own evidence of how something like a unicorn, and all of it's intermediate forms/cousins, would slip through the net of fossilization & discovery. A demonstration of this would be to show just one species of large land mammal for which we are missing significant changes in the fossil record. Do we have a complete lack of antlers in ancestor deers for example.

Just one example of a large land mammalian species today which we haven't had any fossil evidence for it's evolution would suffice to shoot my argument.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 5:46:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 4:45:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Lol, you guys, arguing about unicorns in the philosophy section.

Unicorns are central to human philosophy.
.
.
.
.
.
Actually I really like this discussion XD I can't start believing in unicorns again and no one can call me out on it,
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:02:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 5:46:03 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:45:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Lol, you guys, arguing about unicorns in the philosophy section.

Unicorns are central to human philosophy.
.
.
.
.
.
Actually I really like this discussion XD I can't start believing in unicorns again and no one can call me out on it,

I have failed you, I am sorry.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:08:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 6:02:23 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 5:46:03 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:45:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Lol, you guys, arguing about unicorns in the philosophy section.

Unicorns are central to human philosophy.
.
.
.
.
.
Actually I really like this discussion XD I can't start believing in unicorns again and no one can call me out on it,

I have failed you, I am sorry.

I believe in their past existence now :P why? Because realistically speaking it doesn't make a difference worth crap and because I like unicorns and you can't prove they never existed. So yeah. Suck it.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:20:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 5:46:03 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/27/2014 4:45:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Lol, you guys, arguing about unicorns in the philosophy section.

Unicorns are central to human philosophy.
.
.
.
.
.
Actually I really like this discussion XD I can't start believing in unicorns again and no one can call me out on it,
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:31:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 3:20:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.


Maybe all the horse-like fossils were unicorns but their horns don't fossilize.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:34:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 4:45:53 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
Lol, you guys, arguing about unicorns in the philosophy section.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:50:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 5:45:59 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.

Addressed in the point below.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.

If they were we could expect to see at least one example of a transitional form, or a branch species (for example, neanderthals for homo sapiens).

No we wouldn't, as only 2% of everything that has existed has fossilized. Thus, we would expect NOT to see it.

I'm not saying we are going to find it with certainty, but finding evidence that would lead to such is much greater than the 2% you depicted, since we have a lot of potential clues that would point to a unicorn existing, none of which have been found.

Well, the 2% figure is in ever geology textbook I have ever read. So, take it up with Geology?


Someone looking for a human who finds a Neanderthal fossil instead can say they have evidence that a human likely existed if they knew beforehand the anatomy. Which is the case here with dragons and unicorns.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.

Great, then let's delete the science forum.

Might as well. Most scientific evidence brought up in them is used to support philosophical conclusions anyway.

You completely ignored my point. We're not looking for just 1 species, any of the branch/transitional species would clearly indicate a unicorn existing. So we have many 'opportunities' to spot a species. Furthermore the 2% number is general, and is not representivie of large bony mammals, which fossilize more readily than most.

My friend sad this:

"if your friend on DDO knows anything about the fossilization process he or she would know that it takse very pristine perfect conditions to capture a fossil, it has to get buried by either silt, volcanic ash, mud, water, sand, all that stuff, which is why creatures who lived during mass devestations are fossilized more, (dinosaurs) but without that its is very hard, pretty much a n animal has to be drinking water and get caught in a flash flood and buried, which is pretty rare, as well most animals when they die like to go off to the middle of nowhere and die, cats go underneath porches and sh*t, it is instinctive for animals to find solitude when sick and injured, so they remove them selves from mass popualted areas and go to jungles and forrest, and fossils rarely occur in jungles and forrest because it gets decomposed quicker and jsut turns into fertilizer."

And that's where your 2% figure comes from, that's pretty much correct.

Well, if he is correct, then you argument is refuted. We wouldn't expect any thing to indicate any unicorns, as fossilization is so rare.

Um, the argument stands just fine, I only argued that finding evidence that a unicorn ever existed is much higher than is considered a priori by your 2% figure. For example, we have quite good fossil chronologies of the apes (including humans), whales, horses (which presumably include 'unicorns'), cats (including lions, tigers) and birds.... to name a few. All this in spite of the fact that fossilization is so rare.

Yes, but the whole argument in the first place is that "all this" is really just a small fraction..



The empirical evidence seems to disagree with your notion that we will find zero evidence of unicorns, or any of it's cousin/transitional species.

How so? Just because we know a lot about the small fraction of species you mentioned, doesn't mean much.

Furthermore if we consider that the unicorn and it's ancestors in this case is adapted for open plains (since horses generally are), your jungle argument fails, as surely at least a significant fraction of these would have died in lesser populated areas, not in jungles etc.

Since I have provided evidence of very complete geneologies, which you have yet to rebut. Geneologies which by your logic should be scarcely populated.

Straw-man. I never said that small sample of geneologies (which you call "complete" due to an argument from ignorance) doesn't account for the whole picture. I never said that small sample you talked about should be scarcely populated, I'm talking the big picture. Under what I am saying, we would expect only what you mentioned to be found, as there is way more.

I think it would be fitting that you provide your own evidence of how something like a unicorn, and all of it's intermediate forms/cousins, would slip through the net of fossilization & discovery.

Because fossilization is so rare. That's how.

A demonstration of this would be to show just one species of large land mammal for which we are missing significant changes in the fossil record. Do we have a complete lack of antlers in ancestor deers for example.

Just one example of a large land mammalian species today which we haven't had any fossil evidence for it's evolution would suffice to
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:52:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 5:45:59 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.

Addressed in the point below.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.

If they were we could expect to see at least one example of a transitional form, or a branch species (for example, neanderthals for homo sapiens).

No we wouldn't, as only 2% of everything that has existed has fossilized. Thus, we would expect NOT to see it.

I'm not saying we are going to find it with certainty, but finding evidence that would lead to such is much greater than the 2% you depicted, since we have a lot of potential clues that would point to a unicorn existing, none of which have been found.

Well, the 2% figure is in ever geology textbook I have ever read. So, take it up with Geology?


Someone looking for a human who finds a Neanderthal fossil instead can say they have evidence that a human likely existed if they knew beforehand the anatomy. Which is the case here with dragons and unicorns.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.

Great, then let's delete the science forum.

Might as well. Most scientific evidence brought up in them is used to support philosophical conclusions anyway.

You completely ignored my point. We're not looking for just 1 species, any of the branch/transitional species would clearly indicate a unicorn existing. So we have many 'opportunities' to spot a species. Furthermore the 2% number is general, and is not representivie of large bony mammals, which fossilize more readily than most.

My friend sad this:

"if your friend on DDO knows anything about the fossilization process he or she would know that it takse very pristine perfect conditions to capture a fossil, it has to get buried by either silt, volcanic ash, mud, water, sand, all that stuff, which is why creatures who lived during mass devestations are fossilized more, (dinosaurs) but without that its is very hard, pretty much a n animal has to be drinking water and get caught in a flash flood and buried, which is pretty rare, as well most animals when they die like to go off to the middle of nowhere and die, cats go underneath porches and sh*t, it is instinctive for animals to find solitude when sick and injured, so they remove them selves from mass popualted areas and go to jungles and forrest, and fossils rarely occur in jungles and forrest because it gets decomposed quicker and jsut turns into fertilizer."

And that's where your 2% figure comes from, that's pretty much correct.

Well, if he is correct, then you argument is refuted. We wouldn't expect any thing to indicate any unicorns, as fossilization is so rare.

Um, the argument stands just fine, I only argued that finding evidence that a unicorn ever existed is much higher than is considered a priori by your 2% figure. For example, we have quite good fossil chronologies of the apes (including humans), whales, horses (which presumably include 'unicorns'), cats (including lions, tigers) and birds.... to name a few. All this in spite of the fact that fossilization is so rare.

Yes, but the whole argument in the first place is that "all this" is really just a small fraction..



The empirical evidence seems to disagree with your notion that we will find zero evidence of unicorns, or any of it's cousin/transitional species.

How so? Just because we know a lot about the small fraction of species you mentioned, doesn't mean much.

Furthermore if we consider that the unicorn and it's ancestors in this case is adapted for open plains (since horses generally are), your jungle argument fails, as surely at least a significant fraction of these would have died in lesser populated areas, not in jungles etc.

Since I have provided evidence of very complete geneologies, which you have yet to rebut. Geneologies which by your logic should be scarcely populated. I think it would be fitting that you provide your own evidence of how something like a unicorn, and all of it's intermediate forms/cousins, would slip through the net of fossilization & discovery. A demonstration of this would be to show just one species of large land mammal for which we are missing significant changes in the fossil record. Do we have a complete lack of antlers in ancestor deers for example.

Just one example of a large land mammalian species today which we haven't had any fossil evidence for it's evolution would suffice to shoot my argument.

So, ya, I was never saying that we never should have found what we have found if fossilization is as rare as I claim it is, I am saying that what we have found is TO BE EXPECTED under what I am saying, as there is so much more we HAVEN'T discovered. Get it?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:57:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 5:45:59 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Well, the idea is that if unicorns, dragons, etc existed, they would likely have produced enough fossils to be included in the two percent we do have. Think of it in terms of an extremely large jar of jelly beans: sampling a small portion (but still a large number) would indicate that jelly beans not included in the sample are either extraordinarily few in number or unlikely to be in the jar.

ps: I'm curious as to how scientists know that only two percent of organisms have been been fossilized. Do you know the reasoning behind it?

The problem with that reasoning is that there are thousands and millions of each species, so it is more likely that we would find more "repeats" of species we already have, then having all the species in the 2%.


The problem is, species don't just pop into existence (unless you subscribe to a literal YEC view), they evolve. So even if we couldn't find a dragon or unicorn species, there should at the very least be fossils or evidence of the branch/ancestor species that led to them.

Why? If only 2% of everything that exists gets fossilized, then we should expect not to find them, even if they existed.

Addressed in the point below.


The putative unicorns seem to be closely related to single toed modern horses, which arose relatively recently geologically, so finding evidence for them should be rather eaqsy, especially considering we have an abundance of fossils of three toed horses and five toes ancestry.

Maybe all the horse-like fossils ARE connected to the unicorns, but the unicorns didn't fossilize.

If they were we could expect to see at least one example of a transitional form, or a branch species (for example, neanderthals for homo sapiens).

No we wouldn't, as only 2% of everything that has existed has fossilized. Thus, we would expect NOT to see it.

I'm not saying we are going to find it with certainty, but finding evidence that would lead to such is much greater than the 2% you depicted, since we have a lot of potential clues that would point to a unicorn existing, none of which have been found.

Well, the 2% figure is in ever geology textbook I have ever read. So, take it up with Geology?


Someone looking for a human who finds a Neanderthal fossil instead can say they have evidence that a human likely existed if they knew beforehand the anatomy. Which is the case here with dragons and unicorns.


Most of these species have plenty of bone which is much more likely to fossilize than say, a jellyfish (which is one of the major features that made the Cambrian explosion, an 'explosion' in the fossil record.)

This should be in the science forum!

Science is a branch of philosophy in my mind.

Great, then let's delete the science forum.

Might as well. Most scientific evidence brought up in them is used to support philosophical conclusions anyway.

You completely ignored my point. We're not looking for just 1 species, any of the branch/transitional species would clearly indicate a unicorn existing. So we have many 'opportunities' to spot a species. Furthermore the 2% number is general, and is not representivie of large bony mammals, which fossilize more readily than most.

My friend sad this:

"if your friend on DDO knows anything about the fossilization process he or she would know that it takse very pristine perfect conditions to capture a fossil, it has to get buried by either silt, volcanic ash, mud, water, sand, all that stuff, which is why creatures who lived during mass devestations are fossilized more, (dinosaurs) but without that its is very hard, pretty much a n animal has to be drinking water and get caught in a flash flood and buried, which is pretty rare, as well most animals when they die like to go off to the middle of nowhere and die, cats go underneath porches and sh*t, it is instinctive for animals to find solitude when sick and injured, so they remove them selves from mass popualted areas and go to jungles and forrest, and fossils rarely occur in jungles and forrest because it gets decomposed quicker and jsut turns into fertilizer."

And that's where your 2% figure comes from, that's pretty much correct.

Well, if he is correct, then you argument is refuted. We wouldn't expect any thing to indicate any unicorns, as fossilization is so rare.

Um, the argument stands just fine, I only argued that finding evidence that a unicorn ever existed is much higher than is considered a priori by your 2% figure. For example, we have quite good fossil chronologies of the apes (including humans), whales, horses (which presumably include 'unicorns'), cats (including lions, tigers) and birds.... to name a few. All this in spite of the fact that fossilization is so rare.

Yes, but the whole argument in the first place is that "all this" is really just a small fraction..



The empirical evidence seems to disagree with your notion that we will find zero evidence of unicorns, or any of it's cousin/transitional species.

How so? Just because we know a lot about the small fraction of species you mentioned, doesn't mean much.

Furthermore if we consider that the unicorn and it's ancestors in this case is adapted for open plains (since horses generally are), your jungle argument fails, as surely at least a significant fraction of these would have died in lesser populated areas, not in jungles etc.

Since I have provided evidence of very complete geneologies, which you have yet to rebut. Geneologies which by your logic should be scarcely populated. I think it would be fitting that you provide your own evidence of how something like a unicorn, and all of it's intermediate forms/cousins, would slip through the net of fossilization & discovery. A demonstration of this would be to show just one species of large land mammal for which we are missing significant changes in the fossil record. Do we have a complete lack of antlers in ancestor deers for example.

Just one example of a large land mammalian species today which we haven't had any fossil evidence for it's evolution would suffice to shoot my argument.

So, ya, your idea of "complete" is based on an argument from ignorance. You haven't provided anything but a SMALL SAMPLE, if what I am saying is true, which is exactly what we would expect is fossilization was as rare as I say it is.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 6:59:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Scientists now know of 14% of the species that have ever lived, but people have the naive mindset that there couldn't have been dragons... Please, how can you tell me there couldn't have been dragons, when we only know of 14% of the species that have ever lived on Earth? [http://www.geek.com...]
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 7:02:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 11:08:18 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Ok so scientist know that only 2 percent of anything ever exsisted has been fossilized (read it in a geology text book has to be true) So we have a very slim idea of what the other 98 percent was like, but the second you bring up unicorns, dragons, yetis, people be like dude if they were around we would have fossils."

Smart :) Einstein's got nothing on him.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.