Total Posts:126|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Examine evolution

ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:14:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We should all be able to see that micro-evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest and any variation have tons of evidence supporting them. Though there is also tons of evidence suggesting that macro-evolution is simply not true. Many are lead into believing that total evolution is a proven fact, and that anyone who believes in creationism are people who refuse the facts. That is far from the actual truth. Macro-evolution is not and has not been shown as a proven fact by any means. Even if you where to accept evolution on face value you can never be certain. Its simply a true statement to say that they cant prove evolution in the strictest sense but rather is a suggestive theory rather than proof it happened. They cant prove that a evolutionary relationship even exist at all. It is just a modern prediction. It is true that statements and theories that can not be physically checked by visual observation are not any truth and it is certainly not science.

Any student of Biblical Creationism can not help but see a dichotomy between what evolution says and what is within the Bible. The major factor in discrediting evolution is the age of the earth. Evolution suggest the earth is 3,4 to 5 billions of years old. Though creationism suggests a age of 10 to 6 thousand years. We can see the is a large gap here and evolution needs eons of time to be true but what does our earth show us? According to our magnetic field the earth is 10,000 years old; if the earth was billions of years old then we wouldn't even have a magnetic field. Natural gases underground also suggest that the earth is only 10,000 years old. It is universally believed that the earth and moon are the same age but if they are both billions of years old as suggested then dust particles from space would have the moon's ground level much deeper than it is. Also the moon is shown to be receding from the earth year by year, if the earth and moon were billions of years old then the moon would be much further away then it is. Dating methods such as carbon dating and potassium-argon dating are just two of the most commonly used methods used for dating objects and the earth. However, these methods are not as accurate as evolutionist suggest. A example of this is Lava flows from Hawaii, which are known to be 200 years old, these dating methods calculated these flows at 3 billion years old. There are many of false dating as this on the record. Squashed trilobite fossils have been found in many human fossils even though they should have been extinct millions of years ago before man ever existed. Darwin himself said that if his theory was to be true then the entire earth should have million and possibly billions of fossils proving his theory. We here from evolutionist that fossilization is rare and that is why we have only just thousands of fossils. Let's look at this explanation. We have dinosaur fossils and also man fossils which are millions of years apart. Are we to believe that only a couple hundred thousand of animals of both man and dinosaur was alive at their fossilization? On top of that we need multiple major events to make these fossils if evolution is to be true. With only a few thousand fossils of any period there is a major gap here. There is no way around that there should millions of fossils, which there isn't. There is over 100 million fossils on the record and most (in fact all) support our modern creatures. Evolutionist have been searching for 150 years for the connection between our ape ancestor and man with no luck to date. Scientist and evolutionist seem to be seeing what is not there and then teach this to our children in school. This leaves our children and young adults believing these stories as fact when in actuality it is more of fantasy. We should examine some serious questions like the following:

Why are humans not simply like machines with no emotions if evolution is true?

Why do we as humans have any concern for anything?

Why are we so curious about the world compared to animals who are not?

Why do humans have a will instead of being programmed like computers?
TheAsylum
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:15:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are so many assertions here that you need about 30-40 sources.

I'm waiting.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:20:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
While you're searching for sources, I'll answer the final four questions.

1. Why are humans not simply like machines with no emotions if evolution is true?

Since when did evolution make humans "machines?" It is likely that emotions originated as an evolutionary benefit to care for the young and as an off-sprout of consciousness.

2. Why do we as humans have any concern for anything?

You seem to imply that evolution would mean that we wouldn't have concern for anything. This is clearly false. A great example is that evolutionarily, we are supposed to care very much of the next generation due to them being able to propagate the very genes that were the livelihood of the previous generation.

3. Why are we so curious about the world compared to animals who are not?

I'm sure other animals would be more curious if they weren't gathering food or fending off from predators 24/7. Ridiculous question deserves ridiculous answer.

4. Why do humans have a will instead of being programmed like computers?

Will as in free will? We clearly don't have that.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:20:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:15:40 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
There are so many assertions here that you need about 30-40 sources.

I'm waiting.

You cant assert facts. Actually read instead being told. IM waiting...........
TheAsylum
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:21:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh and macroevolution has been observed in a lab:

http://www.dbskeptic.com...

"In 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve. Since then, the bacteria have been growing under carefully controlled conditions in a culture containing low concentrations of glucose and high concentrations of citrate. Under oxic conditions (that is, when oxygen is present), E. coli cannot grow on citrate and "that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species." Many traits were observed changing over time. Creationists dismissed these changes as micro-evolution. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability.

Each population experienced billions of mutations in the first 30,000 generations. Since every possible point mutation was tried many times, scientists were either looking at a rare mutation (such as a large piece of DNA inverting) or a mutation made possible by the cumulative mutation history of prior generations. If this was just a rare mutation, then a sample of bacteria taken just before the trait first appeared would be no more likely to evolve the trait again than a sample taken from the other populations at the same point in time. However, if the ability to use citrate was from an accumulation of "micro-evolutionary" changes, then a sample from earlier generations of the E. coli would be able to evolve the ability to use citrate again.

Fortunately, the scientists had frozen samples of each population every 500 generations. Sure enough, when they revived earlier samples, they watched the citrate-growing ability evolve in the "micro-evolutionary" line, but not from samples taken from other lines.

We know that in one population, a series of changes that happened between the 15,000th and 20,000th generations laid the groundwork for a major evolutionary advance. Here we have a clear example of macro-evolution under carefully controlled laboratory conditions."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:22:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:20:30 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:15:40 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
There are so many assertions here that you need about 30-40 sources.

I'm waiting.

You cant assert facts. Actually read instead being told. IM waiting...........

I'm disputing that they are facts and presenting actual facts. Hence, you should present facts to support your positions that your position is a fact. Confuse you yet?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:24:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:20:24 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
While you're searching for sources, I'll answer the final four questions.

1. Why are humans not simply like machines with no emotions if evolution is true?

Since when did evolution make humans "machines?" It is likely that emotions originated as an evolutionary benefit to care for the young and as an off-sprout of consciousness.

Since when did evolutionist have a answer here?
2. Why do we as humans have any concern for anything?

You seem to imply that evolution would mean that we wouldn't have concern for anything. This is clearly false. A great example is that evolutionarily, we are supposed to care very much of the next generation due to them being able to propagate the very genes that were the livelihood of the previous generation.

You seem to imply from evolutionist answers that we should have concern.

3. Why are we so curious about the world compared to animals who are not?

I'm sure other animals would be more curious if they weren't gathering food or fending off from predators 24/7. Ridiculous question deserves ridiculous answer.

HMM...Human beings seemed to do that very thing. Funny aint it.
4. Why do humans have a will instead of being programmed like computers?

Will as in free will? We clearly don't have that.
Show that statement. I choose to be on here and go to the store in a few. Thats my will.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:25:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:22:30 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:20:30 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:15:40 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
There are so many assertions here that you need about 30-40 sources.

I'm waiting.

You cant assert facts. Actually read instead being told. IM waiting...........

I'm disputing that they are facts and presenting actual facts. Hence, you should present facts to support your positions that your position is a fact. Confuse you yet?

You can dispute it all you like but its in books and documents that you fail to put your nose into. SCIENCE....itself shows these facts....How much do you really know at what, 16? Read much?
TheAsylum
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:28:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:24:03 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:20:24 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
While you're searching for sources, I'll answer the final four questions.

1. Why are humans not simply like machines with no emotions if evolution is true?

Since when did evolution make humans "machines?" It is likely that emotions originated as an evolutionary benefit to care for the young and as an off-sprout of consciousness.

Since when did evolutionist have a answer here?

So I present you with an answer and you brush it off as me not having the answer?

2. Why do we as humans have any concern for anything?

You seem to imply that evolution would mean that we wouldn't have concern for anything. This is clearly false. A great example is that evolutionarily, we are supposed to care very much of the next generation due to them being able to propagate the very genes that were the livelihood of the previous generation.

You seem to imply from evolutionist answers that we should have concern.

*clap-clap*

YES!

3. Why are we so curious about the world compared to animals who are not?

I'm sure other animals would be more curious if they weren't gathering food or fending off from predators 24/7. Ridiculous question deserves ridiculous answer.

HMM...Human beings seemed to do that very thing. Funny aint it.

Yes, please tell me how you spend all day fending off lions and scavenging food from the forest, instead of sitting on your lazy as$ and reading a book, for which Imabench had an appropriate d!ck rubbing metaphor.

4. Why do humans have a will instead of being programmed like computers?

Will as in free will? We clearly don't have that.
Show that statement. I choose to be on here and go to the store in a few. Thats my will.

Nope. All actions are based on other actions. Those actions are based on previous antecedent actions. Eventually, you will come to an antecedent action that you cannot control (your genes or your parents).

Or

P1 Free will entitles the ability to chose an action on your own regard
P2 Choice is limited by knowledge
C1 Free will is limited by knowledge
P3 Knowledge is limited by truth.
P4 Truth cannot be controlled
C2 Free will does not exist
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:30:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:25:58 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:22:30 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:20:30 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:15:40 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
There are so many assertions here that you need about 30-40 sources.

I'm waiting.

You cant assert facts. Actually read instead being told. IM waiting...........

I'm disputing that they are facts and presenting actual facts. Hence, you should present facts to support your positions that your position is a fact. Confuse you yet?

You can dispute it all you like but its in books and documents that you fail to put your nose into. SCIENCE....itself shows these facts....How much do you really know at what, 16? Read much?

Funny thing, is that at 16, I know much more than you and will likely be much more successful in life. But that's besides the point.

You preach about all of this evidence and "science," but yet I've not seen you show any single piece of incontrovertible empirical evidence which shows that your side of the "debate" is true. If you want people to take you seriously, Douglas, then you need to show evidence like I did about macro-evolution a few posts back.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:36:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You preach about all of this evidence and "science," but yet I've not seen you show any single piece of incontrovertible empirical evidence which shows that your side of the "debate" is true. If you want people to take you seriously, Douglas, then you need to show evidence like I did about macro-evolution a few posts back.

Put your in a actual book and learn the things you are taught. I do. When someone gets on here and actually knows what I am saying is supported by science and still defends evolution then we have a discussion. What should I do read you science and evolution books till you fall asleep at night?
TheAsylum
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:38:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:20:24 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
While you're searching for sources, I'll answer the final four questions.

1. Why are humans not simply like machines with no emotions if evolution is true?

Since when did evolution make humans "machines?" It is likely that emotions originated as an evolutionary benefit to care for the young and as an off-sprout of consciousness.

I'd go one further and state that at many times our built-in programmed emotions dictate how we act and override free will. As these are created and not come from experience, this seriously threatens the ideal of creationism stating we are completely free (libertarianist free will)

2. Why do we as humans have any concern for anything?

You seem to imply that evolution would mean that we wouldn't have concern for anything. This is clearly false. A great example is that evolutionarily, we are supposed to care very much of the next generation due to them being able to propagate the very genes that were the livelihood of the previous generation.

In short, evolution states we would have concern and masses of empathy. Which we do. Which confirms evolution (though arguably not as powerful as other proofs)


3. Why are we so curious about the world compared to animals who are not?

I'm sure other animals would be more curious if they weren't gathering food or fending off from predators 24/7. Ridiculous question deserves ridiculous answer.

Pretty much, though I'd throw in increased intelligence makes us more predictive creatures (which evolution is good for), combined with animals are curious about the world around them.

4. Why do humans have a will instead of being programmed like computers?

Will as in free will? We clearly don't have that.

In short, yes. All evidence points to some form of determinism.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:47:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:38:37 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:20:24 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
While you're searching for sources, I'll answer the final four questions.

1. Why are humans not simply like machines with no emotions if evolution is true?

Since when did evolution make humans "machines?" It is likely that emotions originated as an evolutionary benefit to care for the young and as an off-sprout of consciousness.

I'd go one further and state that at many times our built-in programmed emotions dictate how we act and override free will. As these are created and not come from experience, this seriously threatens the ideal of creationism stating we are completely free (libertarianist free will)

2. Why do we as humans have any concern for anything?

You seem to imply that evolution would mean that we wouldn't have concern for anything. This is clearly false. A great example is that evolutionarily, we are supposed to care very much of the next generation due to them being able to propagate the very genes that were the livelihood of the previous generation.

In short, evolution states we would have concern and masses of empathy. Which we do. Which confirms evolution (though arguably not as powerful as other proofs)


3. Why are we so curious about the world compared to animals who are not?

I'm sure other animals would be more curious if they weren't gathering food or fending off from predators 24/7. Ridiculous question deserves ridiculous answer.

Pretty much, though I'd throw in increased intelligence makes us more predictive creatures (which evolution is good for), combined with animals are curious about the world around them.

4. Why do humans have a will instead of being programmed like computers?

Will as in free will? We clearly don't have that.

In short, yes. All evidence points to some form of determinism.

I didn't realize that free will was a creationist idea.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 10:52:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:47:19 AM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:38:37 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:20:24 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
While you're searching for sources, I'll answer the final four questions.

1. Why are humans not simply like machines with no emotions if evolution is true?

Since when did evolution make humans "machines?" It is likely that emotions originated as an evolutionary benefit to care for the young and as an off-sprout of consciousness.

I'd go one further and state that at many times our built-in programmed emotions dictate how we act and override free will. As these are created and not come from experience, this seriously threatens the ideal of creationism stating we are completely free (libertarianist free will)

2. Why do we as humans have any concern for anything?

You seem to imply that evolution would mean that we wouldn't have concern for anything. This is clearly false. A great example is that evolutionarily, we are supposed to care very much of the next generation due to them being able to propagate the very genes that were the livelihood of the previous generation.

In short, evolution states we would have concern and masses of empathy. Which we do. Which confirms evolution (though arguably not as powerful as other proofs)


3. Why are we so curious about the world compared to animals who are not?

I'm sure other animals would be more curious if they weren't gathering food or fending off from predators 24/7. Ridiculous question deserves ridiculous answer.

Pretty much, though I'd throw in increased intelligence makes us more predictive creatures (which evolution is good for), combined with animals are curious about the world around them.

4. Why do humans have a will instead of being programmed like computers?

Will as in free will? We clearly don't have that.

In short, yes. All evidence points to some form of determinism.

I didn't realize that free will was a creationist idea.

Sorry, I probably didn't make that clear. I hold YEC as a total ideology or Weltenschauung. That is, if someone is a YEC, you can derive most of their beliefs from it. So if someone says the earth is 6000 years old, they're pretty much going to believe in the Bible, monotheism, humans are inherently corrupt, and that humans have free will. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but the idea that we are not machines (which pervades two of his questions) implies that he holds onto the view of free will libertarianism, which does somewhat contradict his philosophy.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 11:00:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:36:54 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
You preach about all of this evidence and "science," but yet I've not seen you show any single piece of incontrovertible empirical evidence which shows that your side of the "debate" is true. If you want people to take you seriously, Douglas, then you need to show evidence like I did about macro-evolution a few posts back.

Put your in a actual book and learn the things you are taught. I do. When someone gets on here and actually knows what I am saying is supported by science and still defends evolution then we have a discussion. What should I do read you science and evolution books till you fall asleep at night?

Well you could at least give us a few links, because few of the things you write in your first post runs true with any knowledge I have. Actuelly none of it does. All science I have read supports that the moon is where it should be. The fact that it was moving away from us was already estimated in the 19th century and evolution is properly the second most proven theory in history.

But instead of giving us link, so we may research your side of the story you demand, not only that we have read and heard about these facts, but also that we agree on all of them before you will even have a discussion with us. That seems silly. Then your not really looking for a good discussion or an exhange of oppinions, but just for a guy who agree with you.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 12:51:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:14:36 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
We should all be able to see that micro-evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest and any variation have tons of evidence supporting them.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Though there is also tons of evidence suggesting that macro-evolution is simply not true.

And to back up said claim you post no links and instead rely on your credibility for people to trust you (not a good move)

Macro-evolution is not and has not been shown as a proven fact by any means.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com...
http://www.windows2universe.org...
http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com...
http://atheism.about.com...

Its simply a true statement to say that they cant prove evolution in the strictest sense but rather is a suggestive theory rather than proof it happened. They cant prove that a evolutionary relationship even exist at all.

See every source posted and compare the evidence in them to the zero sources you have posted.

It is true that statements and theories that can not be physically checked by visual observation are not any truth and it is certainly not science.

The existence of God cannot by physically checked by visual observation either, meaning that by this logic you dont believe in God (See you in hell)

We can see the is a large gap here and evolution needs eons of time to be true

Based on whose opinion? yours?

According to our magnetic field the earth is 10,000 years old

http://orgs.usd.edu...

The magnetic field strengthens and decays over time in cycles, it is not on a one way route of decay that creationists falsely cling to

Natural gases underground also suggest that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

Based on what false logic and sources?

Evidence that Earth's resources show Earth is not 10,000 years old

http://www.tim-thompson.com...
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
http://rationalwiki.org...

It is universally believed that the earth and moon are the same age but if they are both billions of years old as suggested then dust particles from space would have the moon's ground level much deeper than it is.

Solar wind erodes dust, meteoric impacts on the moon also erodes dust, weak gravity allows dust to escape back into space, very little dust is actually floating around in space, and any that is close by to the moon is also close by to this much larger planetary body with a way larger gravitational pull called EARTH.

Also the moon is shown to be receding from the earth year by year, if the earth and moon were billions of years old then the moon would be much further away then it is.

Since the moon drifts no more than 4 CENTIMETERS away every year, and considering that when the moon first impacted the Earth is stayed WAY closer to the Earth compared to where it is now, The moons position alone could refute the 10,000 year old creationist theory.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Dating methods such as carbon dating and potassium-argon dating are just two of the most commonly used methods used for dating objects and the earth. However, these methods are not as accurate as evolutionist suggest.

And also arent the only two methods for examining the age of the Earth... (In fact there are more than 40)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

A example of this is Lava flows from Hawaii, which are known to be 200 years old, these dating methods calculated these flows at 3 billion years old.

Its been ACTIVE for the last 200 years, the lava itself has been proven to be millions of years old, some lava samples are almost as old as Earth itself

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Squashed trilobite fossils have been found in many human fossils even though they should have been extinct millions of years ago before man ever existed.

Trilobites have been extinct for millions of years and your claim that trilobite fossils have been found in human fossils is complete bullsh*t

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.badarchaeology.com...#
http://ncse.com...

Darwin himself said that if his theory was to be true then the entire earth should have million and possibly billions of fossils proving his theory.

Seeing as how I already showed you a link about how the fossils of over 200 invertebrates have been found in the La Brea Tar pits alone in another forum, I can conclude you like to bullsh*t evidence, but Ill post it again.

http://www.tarpits.org...

Are we to believe that only a couple hundred thousand of animals of both man and dinosaur was alive at their fossilization?

Since fossilization can only occur with animals that have hard and sturdy shells or bones, then yeah, all other animals that are relatively weak and flimsy wouldnt be fossilized. Seeing as how most dead animals are eaten or decomposed and the only way to be fossiled is to be preserved entirely whle decaying, it is a miracle that any species are fossilized at all. Now when you take into account how many fossils there are, you can conclude that there are billions of animals that did exist who did not become fossils

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk...

There is no way around that there should millions of fossils, which there isn't.

See above example about how animals that arent eaten, decomposed, or dont have rigid body structures dont fossilize.

There is over 100 million fossils on the record

And you claimed before that there werent many at all..... Dumba**....

Evolutionist have been searching for 150 years for the connection between our ape ancestor and man with no luck to date.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
http://www.channel4.com...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Scientist and evolutionist seem to be seeing what is not there and then teach this to our children in school.

I refer back to your own statement about how there have been millions of fossils found.

This leaves our children and young adults believing these stories as fact when in actuality it is more of fantasy.

Compared to what, Creationism? youve provided the same number of sources showing that creationism is true as you have provided saying evolution is false (A WHOPPING ZERO)

Final score:

ScottyDouglas and Creationism = 0 sources
Imabench and Evolution = 23 sources
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 12:53:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 12:51:53 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:14:36 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
We should all be able to see that micro-evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest and any variation have tons of evidence supporting them.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Though there is also tons of evidence suggesting that macro-evolution is simply not true.

And to back up said claim you post no links and instead rely on your credibility for people to trust you (not a good move)

Macro-evolution is not and has not been shown as a proven fact by any means.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com...
http://www.windows2universe.org...
http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com...
http://atheism.about.com...

Its simply a true statement to say that they cant prove evolution in the strictest sense but rather is a suggestive theory rather than proof it happened. They cant prove that a evolutionary relationship even exist at all.

See every source posted and compare the evidence in them to the zero sources you have posted.

It is true that statements and theories that can not be physically checked by visual observation are not any truth and it is certainly not science.

The existence of God cannot by physically checked by visual observation either, meaning that by this logic you dont believe in God (See you in hell)

We can see the is a large gap here and evolution needs eons of time to be true

Based on whose opinion? yours?

According to our magnetic field the earth is 10,000 years old

http://orgs.usd.edu...

The magnetic field strengthens and decays over time in cycles, it is not on a one way route of decay that creationists falsely cling to

Natural gases underground also suggest that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

Based on what false logic and sources?

Evidence that Earth's resources show Earth is not 10,000 years old

http://www.tim-thompson.com...
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
http://rationalwiki.org...

It is universally believed that the earth and moon are the same age but if they are both billions of years old as suggested then dust particles from space would have the moon's ground level much deeper than it is.

Solar wind erodes dust, meteoric impacts on the moon also erodes dust, weak gravity allows dust to escape back into space, very little dust is actually floating around in space, and any that is close by to the moon is also close by to this much larger planetary body with a way larger gravitational pull called EARTH.

Also the moon is shown to be receding from the earth year by year, if the earth and moon were billions of years old then the moon would be much further away then it is.

Since the moon drifts no more than 4 CENTIMETERS away every year, and considering that when the moon first impacted the Earth is stayed WAY closer to the Earth compared to where it is now, The moons position alone could refute the 10,000 year old creationist theory.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Dating methods such as carbon dating and potassium-argon dating are just two of the most commonly used methods used for dating objects and the earth. However, these methods are not as accurate as evolutionist suggest.

And also arent the only two methods for examining the age of the Earth... (In fact there are more than 40)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

A example of this is Lava flows from Hawaii, which are known to be 200 years old, these dating methods calculated these flows at 3 billion years old.

Its been ACTIVE for the last 200 years, the lava itself has been proven to be millions of years old, some lava samples are almost as old as Earth itself

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Squashed trilobite fossils have been found in many human fossils even though they should have been extinct millions of years ago before man ever existed.

Trilobites have been extinct for millions of years and your claim that trilobite fossils have been found in human fossils is complete bullsh*t

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.badarchaeology.com...#
http://ncse.com...

Darwin himself said that if his theory was to be true then the entire earth should have million and possibly billions of fossils proving his theory.

Seeing as how I already showed you a link about how the fossils of over 200 invertebrates have been found in the La Brea Tar pits alone in another forum, I can conclude you like to bullsh*t evidence, but Ill post it again.

http://www.tarpits.org...

Are we to believe that only a couple hundred thousand of animals of both man and dinosaur was alive at their fossilization?

Since fossilization can only occur with animals that have hard and sturdy shells or bones, then yeah, all other animals that are relatively weak and flimsy wouldnt be fossilized. Seeing as how most dead animals are eaten or decomposed and the only way to be fossiled is to be preserved entirely whle decaying, it is a miracle that any species are fossilized at all. Now when you take into account how many fossils there are, you can conclude that there are billions of animals that did exist who did not become fossils

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk...

There is no way around that there should millions of fossils, which there isn't.

See above example about how animals that arent eaten, decomposed, or dont have rigid body structures dont fossilize.

There is over 100 million fossils on the record

And you claimed before that there werent many at all..... Dumba**....

Evolutionist have been searching for 150 years for the connection between our ape ancestor and man with no luck to date.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
http://www.channel4.com...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Scientist and evolutionist seem to be seeing what is not there and then teach this to our children in school.

I refer back to your own statement about how there have been millions of fossils found.

This leaves our children and young adults believing these stories as fact when in actuality it is more of fantasy.

Compared to what, Creationism? youve provided the same number of sources showing that creationism is true as you have provided saying evolution is false (A WHOPPING ZERO)



Final score:

ScottyDouglas and Creationism = 0 sources
Imabench and Evolution = 23 sources

Win.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 1:32:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 12:51:53 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:14:36 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
We should all be able to see that micro-evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest and any variation have tons of evidence supporting them.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Though there is also tons of evidence suggesting that macro-evolution is simply not true.

And to back up said claim you post no links and instead rely on your credibility for people to trust you (not a good move)

Macro-evolution is not and has not been shown as a proven fact by any means.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com...
http://www.windows2universe.org...
http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com...
http://atheism.about.com...

Its simply a true statement to say that they cant prove evolution in the strictest sense but rather is a suggestive theory rather than proof it happened. They cant prove that a evolutionary relationship even exist at all.

See every source posted and compare the evidence in them to the zero sources you have posted.

It is true that statements and theories that can not be physically checked by visual observation are not any truth and it is certainly not science.

The existence of God cannot by physically checked by visual observation either, meaning that by this logic you dont believe in God (See you in hell)

We can see the is a large gap here and evolution needs eons of time to be true

Based on whose opinion? yours?

According to our magnetic field the earth is 10,000 years old

http://orgs.usd.edu...

The magnetic field strengthens and decays over time in cycles, it is not on a one way route of decay that creationists falsely cling to

Natural gases underground also suggest that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

Based on what false logic and sources?

Evidence that Earth's resources show Earth is not 10,000 years old

http://www.tim-thompson.com...
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
http://rationalwiki.org...

It is universally believed that the earth and moon are the same age but if they are both billions of years old as suggested then dust particles from space would have the moon's ground level much deeper than it is.

Solar wind erodes dust, meteoric impacts on the moon also erodes dust, weak gravity allows dust to escape back into space, very little dust is actually floating around in space, and any that is close by to the moon is also close by to this much larger planetary body with a way larger gravitational pull called EARTH.

Also the moon is shown to be receding from the earth year by year, if the earth and moon were billions of years old then the moon would be much further away then it is.

Since the moon drifts no more than 4 CENTIMETERS away every year, and considering that when the moon first impacted the Earth is stayed WAY closer to the Earth compared to where it is now, The moons position alone could refute the 10,000 year old creationist theory.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Dating methods such as carbon dating and potassium-argon dating are just two of the most commonly used methods used for dating objects and the earth. However, these methods are not as accurate as evolutionist suggest.

And also arent the only two methods for examining the age of the Earth... (In fact there are more than 40)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

A example of this is Lava flows from Hawaii, which are known to be 200 years old, these dating methods calculated these flows at 3 billion years old.

Its been ACTIVE for the last 200 years, the lava itself has been proven to be millions of years old, some lava samples are almost as old as Earth itself

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Squashed trilobite fossils have been found in many human fossils even though they should have been extinct millions of years ago before man ever existed.

Trilobites have been extinct for millions of years and your claim that trilobite fossils have been found in human fossils is complete bullsh*t

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.badarchaeology.com...#
http://ncse.com...

Darwin himself said that if his theory was to be true then the entire earth should have million and possibly billions of fossils proving his theory.

Seeing as how I already showed you a link about how the fossils of over 200 invertebrates have been found in the La Brea Tar pits alone in another forum, I can conclude you like to bullsh*t evidence, but Ill post it again.

http://www.tarpits.org...

Are we to believe that only a couple hundred thousand of animals of both man and dinosaur was alive at their fossilization?

Since fossilization can only occur with animals that have hard and sturdy shells or bones, then yeah, all other animals that are relatively weak and flimsy wouldnt be fossilized. Seeing as how most dead animals are eaten or decomposed and the only way to be fossiled is to be preserved entirely whle decaying, it is a miracle that any species are fossilized at all. Now when you take into account how many fossils there are, you can conclude that there are billions of animals that did exist who did not become fossils

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk...

There is no way around that there should millions of fossils, which there isn't.

See above example about how animals that arent eaten, decomposed, or dont have rigid body structures dont fossilize.

There is over 100 million fossils on the record

And you claimed before that there werent many at all..... Dumba**....

Evolutionist have been searching for 150 years for the connection between our ape ancestor and man with no luck to date.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
http://www.channel4.com...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Scientist and evolutionist seem to be seeing what is not there and then teach this to our children in school.

I refer back to your own statement about how there have been millions of fossils found.

This leaves our children and young adults believing these stories as fact when in actuality it is more of fantasy.

Compared to what, Creationism? youve provided the same number of sources showing that creationism is true as you have provided saying evolution is false (A WHOPPING ZERO)



Final score:

ScottyDouglas and Creationism = 0 sources
Imabench and Evolution = 23 sources

Well, this ended the debate nice and quick lol
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 3:23:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:21:47 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Oh and macroevolution has been observed in a lab:

http://www.dbskeptic.com...

"In 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve. Since then, the bacteria have been growing under carefully controlled conditions in a culture containing low concentrations of glucose and high concentrations of citrate. Under oxic conditions (that is, when oxygen is present), E. coli cannot grow on citrate and "that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species." Many traits were observed changing over time. Creationists dismissed these changes as micro-evolution. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability.

Each population experienced billions of mutations in the first 30,000 generations. Since every possible point mutation was tried many times, scientists were either looking at a rare mutation (such as a large piece of DNA inverting) or a mutation made possible by the cumulative mutation history of prior generations. If this was just a rare mutation, then a sample of bacteria taken just before the trait first appeared would be no more likely to evolve the trait again than a sample taken from the other populations at the same point in time. However, if the ability to use citrate was from an accumulation of "micro-evolutionary" changes, then a sample from earlier generations of the E. coli would be able to evolve the ability to use citrate again.

Fortunately, the scientists had frozen samples of each population every 500 generations. Sure enough, when they revived earlier samples, they watched the citrate-growing ability evolve in the "micro-evolutionary" line, but not from samples taken from other lines.

We know that in one population, a series of changes that happened between the 15,000th and 20,000th generations laid the groundwork for a major evolutionary advance. Here we have a clear example of macro-evolution under carefully controlled laboratory conditions."


LMFAO!!!

Are you serious with this?

It's still e.coli isnt it? yes.. not macro-evolution jack@ss.

It's hilarious how willingly ignorant you people are.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 3:28:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 3:23:30 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 9/2/2012 10:21:47 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Oh and macroevolution has been observed in a lab:

http://www.dbskeptic.com...

"In 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve. Since then, the bacteria have been growing under carefully controlled conditions in a culture containing low concentrations of glucose and high concentrations of citrate. Under oxic conditions (that is, when oxygen is present), E. coli cannot grow on citrate and "that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species." Many traits were observed changing over time. Creationists dismissed these changes as micro-evolution. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability.

Each population experienced billions of mutations in the first 30,000 generations. Since every possible point mutation was tried many times, scientists were either looking at a rare mutation (such as a large piece of DNA inverting) or a mutation made possible by the cumulative mutation history of prior generations. If this was just a rare mutation, then a sample of bacteria taken just before the trait first appeared would be no more likely to evolve the trait again than a sample taken from the other populations at the same point in time. However, if the ability to use citrate was from an accumulation of "micro-evolutionary" changes, then a sample from earlier generations of the E. coli would be able to evolve the ability to use citrate again.

Fortunately, the scientists had frozen samples of each population every 500 generations. Sure enough, when they revived earlier samples, they watched the citrate-growing ability evolve in the "micro-evolutionary" line, but not from samples taken from other lines.

We know that in one population, a series of changes that happened between the 15,000th and 20,000th generations laid the groundwork for a major evolutionary advance. Here we have a clear example of macro-evolution under carefully controlled laboratory conditions."


LMFAO!!!

Are you serious with this?

It's still e.coli isnt it? yes.. not macro-evolution jack@ss.

It's hilarious how willingly ignorant you people are.

They can't reproduce with the other e.coli, hence macro evolution. However, if that's not enough proof for you then:

There are hundreds of examples of macro-evolution here. http://evolutionlist.blogspot.ca...

Of course, you will not visit the website because you are afraid of facts.

Here is a short excerpt:

MACROEVOLUTION AT THE LEVEL OF SPECIES

PLANTS

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. Oenothera lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with Oenothera lamarckiana. He named this new species Oenothera gigas.

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named Primula kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in the genus Tragopogon were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon pratensis. He also showed that Tragopogon mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that Tragopogon mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for Tragopogon micellus.

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, Galeopsis pubescens and Galeopsis speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched Galeopsis tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.

Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of Madia gracilis and Madia citriodora. As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing Madia gracilis and Madia citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled Madia citrigracilis and was fertile.

Frandsen (1943, 1947) showed that Brassica carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing Brassica nigra (n = 8) and Brassica oleracea, Brassica juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing Brassica nigra and Brassica campestris (n = 10), and Brassica napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing Brassica oleracea and Brassica campestris.

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum) which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.

Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae) was described as a hybrid of Woodsia cathcariana and Woodsia ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a Woodsia abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 3:41:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 12:51:53 PM, imabench wrote:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

None of those sites show any example of macroevolution, they only explain it..

And to back up said claim you post no links and instead rely on your credibility for people to trust you (not a good move)

Links are proof? Every link that we post, will be from creationist, whom you don't consider reliable.. either be reasonable or stfu.

Macro-evolution is not and has not been shown as a proven fact by any means.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com...
http://www.windows2universe.org...
http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com...
http://atheism.about.com...


YAWN.. no proof here, only more of the same; descriptions, and speculation. Open you're eyes dude..

See every source posted and compare the evidence in them to the zero sources you have posted.

Your sources are placebos.

It is true that statements and theories that can not be physically checked by visual observation are not any truth and it is certainly not science.

The existence of God cannot by physically checked by visual observation either, meaning that by this logic you dont believe in God (See you in hell)

He got you there scotty...lol

We can see the is a large gap here and evolution needs eons of time to be true

Based on whose opinion? yours?

opinion? so evolutions doesn't need millions of years to occur?

According to our magnetic field the earth is 10,000 years old

http://orgs.usd.edu...

The magnetic field strengthens and decays over time in cycles, it is not on a one way route of decay that creationists falsely cling to

That seems to contradict the 2nd LoTD.

Natural gases underground also suggest that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

Based on what false logic and sources?

Evidence that Earth's resources show Earth is not 10,000 years old

http://www.tim-thompson.com...
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
http://rationalwiki.org...

How is any of that evidence? it's other people who support your position sucking eachother d*cks.. real convincing.

It is universally believed that the earth and moon are the same age but if they are both billions of years old as suggested then dust particles from space would have the moon's ground level much deeper than it is.

Solar wind erodes dust, meteoric impacts on the moon also erodes dust, weak gravity allows dust to escape back into space, very little dust is actually floating around in space, and any that is close by to the moon is also close by to this much larger planetary body with a way larger gravitational pull called EARTH.

Also the moon is shown to be receding from the earth year by year, if the earth and moon were billions of years old then the moon would be much further away then it is.

Since the moon drifts no more than 4 CENTIMETERS away every year, and considering that when the moon first impacted the Earth is stayed WAY closer to the Earth compared to where it is now, The moons position alone could refute the 10,000 year old creationist theory.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

Dating methods such as carbon dating and potassium-argon dating are just two of the most commonly used methods used for dating objects and the earth. However, these methods are not as accurate as evolutionist suggest.

And also arent the only two methods for examining the age of the Earth... (In fact there are more than 40)

http://en.wikipedia.org...

A example of this is Lava flows from Hawaii, which are known to be 200 years old, these dating methods calculated these flows at 3 billion years old.

Its been ACTIVE for the last 200 years, the lava itself has been proven to be millions of years old, some lava samples are almost as old as Earth itself

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Squashed trilobite fossils have been found in many human fossils even though they should have been extinct millions of years ago before man ever existed.

Trilobites have been extinct for millions of years and your claim that trilobite fossils have been found in human fossils is complete bullsh*t

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.badarchaeology.com...#
http://ncse.com...

How do we know any of this sh*t you are posting is true? or do you suggest we should, take iton faith-- like you apparently do.

Darwin himself said that if his theory was to be true then the entire earth should have million and possibly billions of fossils proving his theory.

Seeing as how I already showed you a link about how the fossils of over 200 invertebrates have been found in the La Brea Tar pits alone in another forum, I can conclude you like to bullsh*t evidence, but Ill post it again.

http://www.tarpits.org...

Coyotes? cats? are you kidding me.. this is your evidence?

Are we to believe that only a couple hundred thousand of animals of both man and dinosaur was alive at their fossilization?

Since fossilization can only occur with animals that have hard and sturdy shells or bones, then yeah, all other animals that are relatively weak and flimsy wouldnt be fossilized. Seeing as how most dead animals are eaten or decomposed and the only way to be fossiled is to be preserved entirely whle decaying, it is a miracle that any species are fossilized at all. Now when you take into account how many fossils there are, you can conclude that there are billions of animals that did exist who did not become fossils

http://gwydir.demon.co.uk...

There is no way around that there should millions of fossils, which there isn't.

See above example about how animals that arent eaten, decomposed, or dont have rigid body structures dont fossilize.

In other words, there is no proof.

There is over 100 million fossils on the record

And you claimed before that there werent many at all..... Dumba**....

He nevers aid such a thing, he was referring to the fossils that you need to not sound like a complete moron.

Evolutionist have been searching for 150 years for the connection between our ape ancestor and man with no luck to date.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
http://www.channel4.com...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Oh, great, the people who are making this stuff up said they found more speculated evidence! you've gotta be kidding.


Final score:

ScottyDouglas and Creationism = winner
Imabench and Evolution = weenie
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 4:08:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 4:05:09 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
If you people cant investigate for youselves, you have no hope. You mite as well believe any and everything.

You are kidding me right? Tons of evidence for evolution exists and it's absurd to deny it. There is 0 evidence for creationism, yet you still believe it. It is you who will believe anything, considering there is no evidence for your position like there is for evolution.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 4:12:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 4:05:09 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
If you people cant investigate for youselves, you have no hope. You mite as well believe any and everything.

It's clear you are just projecting your insecurities with regards to your position by the comment you just made. Man shares a common ancestors with apes, and the Earth is billions of years old. There is tons of evidence even in this thread that you ignored because you don't care about what's true, you just care about creationism which is backed up by absolutely nothing but fairy tales.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 4:17:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 4:08:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/2/2012 4:05:09 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
If you people cant investigate for youselves, you have no hope. You mite as well believe any and everything.

There is 0 evidence for creationism, yet you still believe it. It is you who will believe anything, considering there is no evidence for your position like there is for evolution.:

You are too funny, NONE, 0. LOL.
TheAsylum
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 4:19:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 4:12:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/2/2012 4:05:09 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
If you people cant investigate for youselves, you have no hope. You mite as well believe any and everything.

It's clear you are just projecting your insecurities with regards to your position by the comment you just made. Man shares a common ancestors with apes, and the Earth is billions of years old. There is tons of evidence even in this thread that you ignored because you don't care about what's true, you just care about creationism which is backed up by absolutely nothing but fairy tales.

You didnt supply any evidence and thats the joke about it. You just think you did. All speculation and every last website says it themselves. Now who will believe anything.
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 4:23:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 4:19:38 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/2/2012 4:12:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/2/2012 4:05:09 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
If you people cant investigate for youselves, you have no hope. You mite as well believe any and everything.

It's clear you are just projecting your insecurities with regards to your position by the comment you just made. Man shares a common ancestors with apes, and the Earth is billions of years old. There is tons of evidence even in this thread that you ignored because you don't care about what's true, you just care about creationism which is backed up by absolutely nothing but fairy tales.

You didnt supply any evidence and thats the joke about it. You just think you did. All speculation and every last website says it themselves. Now who will believe anything.

Dude imabench posted tons of sources, you posted none, all you have is speculation and you ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution, so you can believe creationism (which has 0 evidence to support it). After I crush you in the demon debate, we are going to debate Evolution vs Creatonism. You are spewing so much nonsense it's irritating, you really need to do research before typing. Anyone who thinks the Earth is 10,000 years old needs their head examined.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 4:23:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 4:19:38 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/2/2012 4:12:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/2/2012 4:05:09 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
If you people cant investigate for youselves, you have no hope. You mite as well believe any and everything.

It's clear you are just projecting your insecurities with regards to your position by the comment you just made. Man shares a common ancestors with apes, and the Earth is billions of years old. There is tons of evidence even in this thread that you ignored because you don't care about what's true, you just care about creationism which is backed up by absolutely nothing but fairy tales.

You didnt supply any evidence and thats the joke about it. You just think you did. All speculation and every last website says it themselves. Now who will believe anything.

Did you miss everything I posted or is your head that far up your own a**?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 4:24:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 10:21:47 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Oh and macroevolution has been observed in a lab:

http://www.dbskeptic.com...

"In 1988, scientists at Michigan State University created twelve population lines of E. coli so that they could watch them evolve. Since then, the bacteria have been growing under carefully controlled conditions in a culture containing low concentrations of glucose and high concentrations of citrate. Under oxic conditions (that is, when oxygen is present), E. coli cannot grow on citrate and "that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species." Many traits were observed changing over time. Creationists dismissed these changes as micro-evolution. For over 30,000 generations, the E. coli in the experiment did not evolve the ability to grow on citrate. Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability.

Each population experienced billions of mutations in the first 30,000 generations. Since every possible point mutation was tried many times, scientists were either looking at a rare mutation (such as a large piece of DNA inverting) or a mutation made possible by the cumulative mutation history of prior generations. If this was just a rare mutation, then a sample of bacteria taken just before the trait first appeared would be no more likely to evolve the trait again than a sample taken from the other populations at the same point in time. However, if the ability to use citrate was from an accumulation of "micro-evolutionary" changes, then a sample from earlier generations of the E. coli would be able to evolve the ability to use citrate again.

Fortunately, the scientists had frozen samples of each population every 500 generations. Sure enough, when they revived earlier samples, they watched the citrate-growing ability evolve in the "micro-evolutionary" line, but not from samples taken from other lines.

We know that in one population, a series of changes that happened between the 15,000th and 20,000th generations laid the groundwork for a major evolutionary advance. Here we have a clear example of macro-evolution under carefully controlled laboratory conditions."

Really, Why is it that only bacteria only change? Why is it when they do they are still bacteria? Why is it that most the mutations result in death? And the final question why is it nothing but bacteria produced these results?
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 4:25:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 4:23:29 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/2/2012 4:19:38 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/2/2012 4:12:01 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 9/2/2012 4:05:09 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
If you people cant investigate for youselves, you have no hope. You mite as well believe any and everything.

It's clear you are just projecting your insecurities with regards to your position by the comment you just made. Man shares a common ancestors with apes, and the Earth is billions of years old. There is tons of evidence even in this thread that you ignored because you don't care about what's true, you just care about creationism which is backed up by absolutely nothing but fairy tales.

You didnt supply any evidence and thats the joke about it. You just think you did. All speculation and every last website says it themselves. Now who will believe anything.

Did you miss everything I posted or is your head that far up your own a**?

Creationists just like to plug their ears and go "la la la I don't care about your evidence, I want to believe creationist myths". There is no hope for people like Scotty, he's a lost soul.