Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Evolution: BoP

Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 2:42:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If a creationist accepts "adaption", "micro-evolution", or "change within kinds", then they agree that life does in fact change in response to natural selection pressures. If this is the case, then both parties agree that natural mechanisms exist through which the genetics of a population of organisms responds to over successive generations in through mutations that are regulated by selection pressures.

Now, regarding the issue of "macro-evolution" (which entails the exact same evolutionary mechanisms over a drastically longer period of time), most creationists are denying that it can occur (mostly from lack of direct observation). Given the previous paragraph, since both parties agree that an evolutionary process does exist and that there is no evidence to suggest that this process has a determined limit to the changes that it can bring about, this becomes a claim. Put another way, since this process is simply following natural laws, then there is no reason to assume that a population of organisms would just cease evolving at some determined point, which would be indicative that the effects of the natural laws terminated or changed. Because of this, when they say that organisms cannot change beyond the concepts given in the first paragraph, they make a positive claim that must be supported by the creationists; they hold the Burden of Proof and must identify and provide evidence for this "Kinds Barrier" that marks the limits of the effects of this natural process.

An analogy would be if two people observed two objects moving slowly away from each other through empty space, and both agree there is movement. Since there is no evidence to believe this movement will cease according to natural laws, then it is reasonable to assume that the movement will continue. However, if one person claims that there is a "limit" to this movement because we have not observed any greater demonstration of this movement, then that person is responsible for detailing and proving this claim.

I am well aware that this means nothing to most creationists; I was just discussing it with someone and wanted to subject this explanation to scrutiny, here, to make sure my designation of the BoP is justified. So, is this a logical assessment?
scuzz
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 2:47:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 2:42:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
If a creationist accepts "adaption", "micro-evolution", or "change within kinds", then they agree that life does in fact change in response to natural selection pressures. If this is the case, then both parties agree that natural mechanisms exist through which the genetics of a population of organisms responds to over successive generations in through mutations that are regulated by selection pressures.

Now, regarding the issue of "macro-evolution" (which entails the exact same evolutionary mechanisms over a drastically longer period of time), most creationists are denying that it can occur (mostly from lack of direct observation). Given the previous paragraph, since both parties agree that an evolutionary process does exist and that there is no evidence to suggest that this process has a determined limit to the changes that it can bring about, this becomes a claim. Put another way, since this process is simply following natural laws, then there is no reason to assume that a population of organisms would just cease evolving at some determined point, which would be indicative that the effects of the natural laws terminated or changed. Because of this, when they say that organisms cannot change beyond the concepts given in the first paragraph, they make a positive claim that must be supported by the creationists; they hold the Burden of Proof and must identify and provide evidence for this "Kinds Barrier" that marks the limits of the effects of this natural process.

An analogy would be if two people observed two objects moving slowly away from each other through empty space, and both agree there is movement. Since there is no evidence to believe this movement will cease according to natural laws, then it is reasonable to assume that the movement will continue. However, if one person claims that there is a "limit" to this movement because we have not observed any greater demonstration of this movement, then that person is responsible for detailing and proving this claim.

I am well aware that this means nothing to most creationists; I was just discussing it with someone and wanted to subject this explanation to scrutiny, here, to make sure my designation of the BoP is justified. So, is this a logical assessment? : :

Everything in this world constantly changes. A baby that is born in this world changes every second until it dies. This kind of evolution exists but not one object on this earth was formed by evolving from simpler forms of life such as a human from primordial soup. Evolutionists never talk about where the primordial soup came into being.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 3:13:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 2:47:18 AM, scuzz wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:42:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
If a creationist accepts "adaption", "micro-evolution", or "change within kinds", then they agree that life does in fact change in response to natural selection pressures. If this is the case, then both parties agree that natural mechanisms exist through which the genetics of a population of organisms responds to over successive generations in through mutations that are regulated by selection pressures.

Now, regarding the issue of "macro-evolution" (which entails the exact same evolutionary mechanisms over a drastically longer period of time), most creationists are denying that it can occur (mostly from lack of direct observation). Given the previous paragraph, since both parties agree that an evolutionary process does exist and that there is no evidence to suggest that this process has a determined limit to the changes that it can bring about, this becomes a claim. Put another way, since this process is simply following natural laws, then there is no reason to assume that a population of organisms would just cease evolving at some determined point, which would be indicative that the effects of the natural laws terminated or changed. Because of this, when they say that organisms cannot change beyond the concepts given in the first paragraph, they make a positive claim that must be supported by the creationists; they hold the Burden of Proof and must identify and provide evidence for this "Kinds Barrier" that marks the limits of the effects of this natural process.

An analogy would be if two people observed two objects moving slowly away from each other through empty space, and both agree there is movement. Since there is no evidence to believe this movement will cease according to natural laws, then it is reasonable to assume that the movement will continue. However, if one person claims that there is a "limit" to this movement because we have not observed any greater demonstration of this movement, then that person is responsible for detailing and proving this claim.

I am well aware that this means nothing to most creationists; I was just discussing it with someone and wanted to subject this explanation to scrutiny, here, to make sure my designation of the BoP is justified. So, is this a logical assessment? : :

Everything in this world constantly changes. A baby that is born in this world changes every second until it dies. This kind of evolution exists but not one object on this earth was formed by evolving from simpler forms of life such as a human from primordial soup. Evolutionists never talk about where the primordial soup came into being.

Evolution is BIOLOGY. Abiogenesis is CHEMISTRY. Only a moron would expect someone talking about the Theory of Evolution to include abiogenesis in their talks.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
scuzz
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 3:26:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 3:13:17 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/29/2015 2:47:18 AM, scuzz wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:42:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
If a creationist accepts "adaption", "micro-evolution", or "change within kinds", then they agree that life does in fact change in response to natural selection pressures. If this is the case, then both parties agree that natural mechanisms exist through which the genetics of a population of organisms responds to over successive generations in through mutations that are regulated by selection pressures.

Now, regarding the issue of "macro-evolution" (which entails the exact same evolutionary mechanisms over a drastically longer period of time), most creationists are denying that it can occur (mostly from lack of direct observation). Given the previous paragraph, since both parties agree that an evolutionary process does exist and that there is no evidence to suggest that this process has a determined limit to the changes that it can bring about, this becomes a claim. Put another way, since this process is simply following natural laws, then there is no reason to assume that a population of organisms would just cease evolving at some determined point, which would be indicative that the effects of the natural laws terminated or changed. Because of this, when they say that organisms cannot change beyond the concepts given in the first paragraph, they make a positive claim that must be supported by the creationists; they hold the Burden of Proof and must identify and provide evidence for this "Kinds Barrier" that marks the limits of the effects of this natural process.

An analogy would be if two people observed two objects moving slowly away from each other through empty space, and both agree there is movement. Since there is no evidence to believe this movement will cease according to natural laws, then it is reasonable to assume that the movement will continue. However, if one person claims that there is a "limit" to this movement because we have not observed any greater demonstration of this movement, then that person is responsible for detailing and proving this claim.

I am well aware that this means nothing to most creationists; I was just discussing it with someone and wanted to subject this explanation to scrutiny, here, to make sure my designation of the BoP is justified. So, is this a logical assessment? : :

Everything in this world constantly changes. A baby that is born in this world changes every second until it dies. This kind of evolution exists but not one object on this earth was formed by evolving from simpler forms of life such as a human from primordial soup. Evolutionists never talk about where the primordial soup came into being.

Evolution is BIOLOGY. Abiogenesis is CHEMISTRY. Only a moron would expect someone talking about the Theory of Evolution to include abiogenesis in their talks. : :

Only a moron wouldn't understand this phrase; "Everything in this world constantly changes."

Biology has changed a great deal from it's original observations of moving bodies. The term abiogenesis is speculation that life came from simple organic compounds. This hasn't been proven to be the way life came into being.

Life experiences came from the thoughts of our Creator who spoke commands into computer-like technology that created a simulation that we're all a part of. That's why he had us build rudimentary computers so that he could use them to teach me exactly how he created everything.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 6:21:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 3:13:17 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/29/2015 2:47:18 AM, scuzz wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:42:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
If a creationist accepts "adaption", "micro-evolution", or "change within kinds", then they agree that life does in fact change in response to natural selection pressures. If this is the case, then both parties agree that natural mechanisms exist through which the genetics of a population of organisms responds to over successive generations in through mutations that are regulated by selection pressures.

Now, regarding the issue of "macro-evolution" (which entails the exact same evolutionary mechanisms over a drastically longer period of time), most creationists are denying that it can occur (mostly from lack of direct observation). Given the previous paragraph, since both parties agree that an evolutionary process does exist and that there is no evidence to suggest that this process has a determined limit to the changes that it can bring about, this becomes a claim. Put another way, since this process is simply following natural laws, then there is no reason to assume that a population of organisms would just cease evolving at some determined point, which would be indicative that the effects of the natural laws terminated or changed. Because of this, when they say that organisms cannot change beyond the concepts given in the first paragraph, they make a positive claim that must be supported by the creationists; they hold the Burden of Proof and must identify and provide evidence for this "Kinds Barrier" that marks the limits of the effects of this natural process.

Deleted above..

Evolution is BIOLOGY. Abiogenesis is CHEMISTRY. Only a moron would expect someone talking about the Theory of Evolution to include abiogenesis in their talks.

So evolutionists were morons for about 100 years, I completely agree. Your "new" argument against ambiogenesis is complete bullish^t and shows just how dishonest the evo community is and constantly remains.
No one claimed that abiogenesis was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it. Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called "chemical evolution" (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, "On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life", International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004). (Ref should suffice to what you claim a moron is)
It doesn"t matter how well one can or can"t explain how the first life could evolve, if you can"t explain how it got there in the first place, the theory is literally dead in the water (or the (non-existent) primordial soup, as the case may be).
Creationists believe in changing allele frequencies over time. Therefore, since both sides claim this as part of their model, the debate must lie outside this area. Hence, the origin of life is fair game for discussions on whether or not evolution is true.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 1:32:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
regarding the issue of "macro-evolution" (which entails the exact same evolutionary mechanisms over a drastically longer period of time), most creationists are denying that it can occur (mostly from lack of direct observation)

I would the lack of observation is the critical point. A wise creationist might argue that macro-evolution is speculation going beyond the available evidence. It's true that actual 'macro-evolution' has not been demonstrated under laboratory conditions. Given the time-scales involved it is unlikely any real experiment will demonstrate one species radically changing into another - certainly not for anything with a generation time measure in years such as a mammal.

By requiring an explicit demonstration of macro-evolution Creationists deliberately place the bar absurdly high. Non-creationists generally accept that the indirect evidence for macro-evolution is sufficiently strong without having to, say, give a lab rat wings and the power of flight.

I thnk the BoP (if that matters) was on we evolutionists, but I think the case has been made. Only by continual moving of goalposts can creationists hold out. If a scientist succeeded in getting a baby elephant to emerge from a test tube of amino acids a determined creationst could always point out that a test-tube is not the same environment as the real world.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 1:50:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 6:21:13 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/29/2015 3:13:17 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/29/2015 2:47:18 AM, scuzz wrote:
At 10/28/2015 2:42:56 PM, Chaosism wrote:
If a creationist accepts "adaption", "micro-evolution", or "change within kinds", then they agree that life does in fact change in response to natural selection pressures. If this is the case, then both parties agree that natural mechanisms exist through which the genetics of a population of organisms responds to over successive generations in through mutations that are regulated by selection pressures.

Now, regarding the issue of "macro-evolution" (which entails the exact same evolutionary mechanisms over a drastically longer period of time), most creationists are denying that it can occur (mostly from lack of direct observation). Given the previous paragraph, since both parties agree that an evolutionary process does exist and that there is no evidence to suggest that this process has a determined limit to the changes that it can bring about, this becomes a claim. Put another way, since this process is simply following natural laws, then there is no reason to assume that a population of organisms would just cease evolving at some determined point, which would be indicative that the effects of the natural laws terminated or changed. Because of this, when they say that organisms cannot change beyond the concepts given in the first paragraph, they make a positive claim that must be supported by the creationists; they hold the Burden of Proof and must identify and provide evidence for this "Kinds Barrier" that marks the limits of the effects of this natural process.

Deleted above..

Evolution is BIOLOGY. Abiogenesis is CHEMISTRY. Only a moron would expect someone talking about the Theory of Evolution to include abiogenesis in their talks.

So evolutionists were morons for about 100 years, I completely agree. Your "new" argument against ambiogenesis is complete bullish^t and shows just how dishonest the evo community is and constantly remains.
No one claimed that abiogenesis was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it. Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called "chemical evolution" (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, "On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life", International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004). (Ref should suffice to what you claim a moron is)
It doesn"t matter how well one can or can"t explain how the first life could evolve, if you can"t explain how it got there in the first place, the theory is literally dead in the water (or the (non-existent) primordial soup, as the case may be).
Creationists believe in changing allele frequencies over time. Therefore, since both sides claim this as part of their model, the debate must lie outside this area. Hence, the origin of life is fair game for discussions on whether or not evolution is true.

Evolution pertains to the diversity of life. Abiogenesis pertains to the origin of life. Why is this so bad? There are multiple possibilities for the origin of life, and if another beside abiogenesis is correct (even one we don't know about), then evolution will still have taken place. This is exactly how the notion of Theistic Evolution is possible; God created life and initiated/guided the evolutionary processes. No many appear to dispute that life had SOME origin, so as long as that stands, evolution can take place.

If you are going to argue that evolution could not have happed without abiogenesis so they should be bundled together, then you may as well throw everything together, including the Big Bang (because nothing would be possible) and Germ Theory (can't exist without evolution and abiogenesis) and whatnot. The separation of theories is a means of organization of ideas.

To pull a Ray Comfort: a painting means that there is a paintah. And this argument that if abiogenesis false then evolution is false is akin to saying that a painting cannot exist because we don't know who the paintah was, or because we're wrong about who it was. No one is denying that there is *some* paintah.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 1:55:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 1:32:12 PM, kp98 wrote:
regarding the issue of "macro-evolution" (which entails the exact same evolutionary mechanisms over a drastically longer period of time), most creationists are denying that it can occur (mostly from lack of direct observation)

I would the lack of observation is the critical point. A wise creationist might argue that macro-evolution is speculation going beyond the available evidence. It's true that actual 'macro-evolution' has not been demonstrated under laboratory conditions. Given the time-scales involved it is unlikely any real experiment will demonstrate one species radically changing into another - certainly not for anything with a generation time measure in years such as a mammal.

By requiring an explicit demonstration of macro-evolution Creationists deliberately place the bar absurdly high. Non-creationists generally accept that the indirect evidence for macro-evolution is sufficiently strong without having to, say, give a lab rat wings and the power of flight.

I thnk the BoP (if that matters) was on we evolutionists, but I think the case has been made. Only by continual moving of goalposts can creationists hold out. If a scientist succeeded in getting a baby elephant to emerge from a test tube of amino acids a determined creationst could always point out that a test-tube is not the same environment as the real world.

The whole point is that the distinction is meaningless and totally undefined. Certainly, they place the bar high, but it needs to be demanded of them exactly where that bar is. They would need to define "Kind" in a biological sense that is applicable to the observations of the world, today, and they would need to precisely specify the biological distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. But, I'm sure you know this stuff, already.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 2:49:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To be honest, the evolution/creation debate isn't played by the rules that apply to 'Debating soc.' debating. It's a propaganda war and the problem is not who has the BoP but that the creationists deliberately tell a distorted version of the truth, knowing full well it is a tissue of lies, because they know it is what its audience wants to hear.
I have a horrible suspicion some creationist understand evolution very well - and probably believe it - and use that knowledge to make up their travesty of it.

One reason we evolutionists won't win the debate against creationists is that we worry about things like the BoP - not to mention we try very hard to be honest and truthful. It's not a fair fight - but it's not a fair world.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 10:26:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Creationists take Genesis literally, but they never consider the possibility that it's a parable. Jesus spoke in parables all the time. The entire book of Job is a parable. There is no reason why Genesis 1 - 11 must be taken as the literal version of events. If anything, it works better as a morality tale about why you don't_fuck with God. And as a morality tale, it still holds relevance today.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 12:39:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 1:55:54 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/29/2015 1:32:12 PM, kp98 wrote:
regarding the issue of "macro-evolution" (which entails the exact same evolutionary mechanisms over a drastically longer period of time), most creationists are denying that it can occur (mostly from lack of direct observation)

I would the lack of observation is the critical point. A wise creationist might argue that macro-evolution is speculation going beyond the available evidence. It's true that actual 'macro-evolution' has not been demonstrated under laboratory conditions. Given the time-scales involved it is unlikely any real experiment will demonstrate one species radically changing into another - certainly not for anything with a generation time measure in years such as a mammal.

By requiring an explicit demonstration of macro-evolution Creationists deliberately place the bar absurdly high. Non-creationists generally accept that the indirect evidence for macro-evolution is sufficiently strong without having to, say, give a lab rat wings and the power of flight.

I thnk the BoP (if that matters) was on we evolutionists, but I think the case has been made. Only by continual moving of goalposts can creationists hold out. If a scientist succeeded in getting a baby elephant to emerge from a test tube of amino acids a determined creationst could always point out that a test-tube is not the same environment as the real world.

The whole point is that the distinction is meaningless and totally undefined. Certainly, they place the bar high, but it needs to be demanded of them exactly where that bar is. They would need to define "Kind" in a biological sense that is applicable to the observations of the world, today, and they would need to precisely specify the biological distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. But, I'm sure you know this stuff, already.

Some people misinterpret the biblical account of the flood. There is the phrase "that have the breath of life in them" qualifying which animals were on the arc. 7 of each pair of clean animals, 1 pair of each unclean. The rest of the animals were left and covered simultaneously with the flood. The verses say people as well as aNimals were killed in the Noah flood. Nothing evolved from anything else. Its an interpretation of an assumption.

FACT-whenever a mostly intact dinosaur fossil is found, meaning the majority of the fossilized bones are present to make essentially the whole animal, 85% of those found are all in the "swimming position". Hence they were being covered with sediment while struggling to keep their heads above water or wet mud or whatever.

Fact- there are uprooted trees in strata that are claimed to represent millions of years. Not possible for wood to stay in one place, without rotting, while being covered with sediments for millions of years. Had to be instantaneous.

Evolution simply dismisses contradictory proof when its found. As do cosmologists when evidence calls into question age of the universe evidence. Hubbles assistant actually has pictures of things that disprove the "red shift" theory on the aging of the universe and its expansion. Cosmologists will not allow the contradictory evidence into the "picture". Scientists aren't peer reviewed like everyone is led to believe. They are cherry picked. Its all a sham, popularity is the method, not scientific.
Here is an information technologist among other degrees he holds, talking about actual facts about today and what we know in science and what no one talks about.
https://m.youtube.com...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 2:46:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 12:39:04 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Some people misinterpret the biblical account of the flood. There is the phrase "that have the breath of life in them" qualifying which animals were on the arc. 7 of each pair of clean animals, 1 pair of each unclean. The rest of the animals were left and covered simultaneously with the flood. The verses say people as well as aNimals were killed in the Noah flood. Nothing evolved from anything else. Its an interpretation of an assumption.

I think this is addressed by a number of people, with such point as the fact that fossils appear to be fossilized in different geological strata, whereas, if they were all killed in the flood together, then they should have been fossilized together in the same stratum.

I watched the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate some time ago with some objections, and this is an excerpt. -->

FACT-whenever a mostly intact dinosaur fossil is found, meaning the majority of the fossilized bones are present to make essentially the whole animal, 85% of those found are all in the "swimming position". Hence they were being covered with sediment while struggling to keep their heads above water or wet mud or whatever.

Are you saying that dinosaurs could swim and could hold their breath long enough to be still "swimming" and be buried alive in that position? If this is true, and they were buried so rapidly, how could their position be preserved in the wake of the amount of force the fast-moving sediment that would be rapidly engulfing them? Is there a credible source for this?

Fact- there are uprooted trees in strata that are claimed to represent millions of years. Not possible for wood to stay in one place, without rotting, while being covered with sediments for millions of years. Had to be instantaneous.

Can you point me to source for this one? I didn't find anything.

Evolution simply dismisses contradictory proof when its found. As do cosmologists when evidence calls into question age of the universe evidence. Hubbles assistant actually has pictures of things that disprove the "red shift" theory on the aging of the universe and its expansion. Cosmologists will not allow the contradictory evidence into the "picture". Scientists aren't peer reviewed like everyone is led to believe. They are cherry picked. Its all a sham, popularity is the method, not scientific.
Here is an information technologist among other degrees he holds, talking about actual facts about today and what we know in science and what no one talks about.
https://m.youtube.com...

I'll take a look at this link.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 10:34:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 2:46:20 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/30/2015 12:39:04 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Some people misinterpret the biblical account of the flood. There is the phrase "that have the breath of life in them" qualifying which animals were on the arc. 7 of each pair of clean animals, 1 pair of each unclean. The rest of the animals were left and covered simultaneously with the flood. The verses say people as well as aNimals were killed in the Noah flood. Nothing evolved from anything else. Its an interpretation of an assumption.

I think this is addressed by a number of people, with such point as the fact that fossils appear to be fossilized in different geological strata, whereas, if they were all killed in the flood together, then they should have been fossilized together in the same stratum.

Not actually a strong argument, since its been proven that animals such as fossilized whales have a width that runs through millions of years of strata. Here read this if you'd like some up to date fossil news. Just to be clear I read both sides of the evolution debate and info on both interpretations of what the fossil record does and doesn't show. Based on worldview and based on plain "science", both sides have good points, but the exceptions to the rules or the odd aspects is what I'm interested in because to be honest, I don't really care how we came to exist....lol

http://www.detectingdesign.com...

I watched the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate some time ago with some objections, and this is an excerpt. -->



FACT-whenever a mostly intact dinosaur fossil is found, meaning the majority of the fossilized bones are present to make essentially the whole animal, 85% of those found are all in the "swimming position". Hence they were being covered with sediment while struggling to keep their heads above water or wet mud or whatever.

Are you saying that dinosaurs could swim and could hold their breath long enough to be still "swimming" and be buried alive in that position? If this is true, and they were buried so rapidly, how could their position be preserved in the wake of the amount of force the fast-moving sediment that would be rapidly engulfing them? Is there a credible source for thi
Only if they were buried catastrophically or what essentially would be equivalent to "staying above quicksand". Not saying swim as in successfully, but even a drowning person who doesn't know how to swim can be in a "keeping their head above water" position. That's what I meant by swimming position.
Fact- there are uprooted trees in strata that are claimed to represent millions of years. Not possible for wood to stay in one place, without rotting, while being covered with sediments for millions of years. Had to be instantaneous.

Can you point me to source for this one? I didn't find anything.
Google polystrate trees, the link I gave you up top might have information on them though.

Evolution simply dismisses contradictory proof when its found. As do cosmologists when evidence calls into question age of the universe evidence. Hubbles assistant actually has pictures of things that disprove the "red shift" theory on the aging of the universe and its expansion. Cosmologists will not allow the contradictory evidence into the "picture". Scientists aren't peer reviewed like everyone is led to believe. They are cherry picked. Its all a sham, popularity is the method, not scientific.
Here is an information technologist among other degrees he holds, talking about actual facts about today and what we know in science and what no one talks about.
https://m.youtube.com...

I'll take a look at this link.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,129
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 4:02:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 6:21:13 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

It doesn"t matter how well one can or can"t explain how the first life could evolve, if you can"t explain how it got there in the first place, the theory is literally dead in the water [...]

Is gravity dead in the water? You're being inconsistent and unreasonable.

Creationists believe in changing allele frequencies over time. Therefore, since both sides claim this as part of their model, the debate must lie outside this area. Hence, the origin of life is fair game for discussions on whether or not evolution is true.

No, evolution is not a claim about the origin of life, but the origin of the diversity of life.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten