Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Darwinist origin of species

muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 9:34:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Transitional fossils like archaeopteryx.

Genetic evidence. DNA sequencing shows that organisms that are phylogenetically closer have more similar genetics.

Geological column. We see certain types of fossils where we would expect them, and they aren't where we wouldn't expect them. For instance, no bunnies in the Cambrian, but plenty of transitions from water to land.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 9:51:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 9:34:34 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Transitional fossils like archaeopteryx.:
http://www.rae.org...
"Birds cannot be unambiguously related to any other fossil or living group--and therefore the evolutionary conundrum of the origin of flight remains."
"The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred. Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless. Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying creatures"flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). It would be strange, indeed, even incomprehensible, that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, our museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!"
http://www.icr.org...

Genetic evidence.:
Elaborate.
DNA sequencing shows that organisms that are phylogenetically closer have more similar genetics.:
How does this prove darwinism?

Geological column. We see certain types of fossils where we would expect them, and they aren't where we wouldn't expect them. For instance, no bunnies in the Cambrian, but plenty of transitions from water to land.:
"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured. ... 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation." American paleontologist Steven M. Stanley
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 10:28:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 9:51:53 AM, Pennington wrote:
'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation." American paleontologist Steven M. Stanley

Yes, so god not only created all the animals.. He did so in phases...

Coming back onto the scene to make a wholly new bunch later..

The simple organisms were boring.. so he then made fish and such...
Then, later he was like
"but it would be so Cool to have little things that can crawl around out of the water too"
so he did that..

Then later, he thought Bigger walking creatures would be cool.. and then he got it in his head to make Flyers..

Unless of course you dispute the manners by which we date fossils and geological deposits.. Right?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 10:41:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 9:51:53 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 9:34:34 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Transitional fossils like archaeopteryx.:
http://www.rae.org...
"Birds cannot be unambiguously related to any other fossil or living group--and therefore the evolutionary conundrum of the origin of flight remains."

See, this is the problem when creationists look at transitional fossils. They say "oh, we'll you can't prove that this is related to that". The issue isn't proving that the fossil is truly a transitional fossil. It is showing that a viable candidate exists, therefore closing a possible hole in the theory. If I show you a line up of fossils, and they show a gradual change from one species to another, then sure the chance exists that they are completely unrelated and they just happen to show this gradual change when in reality it didn't happen like that. But that isn't the point, the point is to show that viable fossils exist, that could be transitional fossils. If evolution is true, then they are. That is why more evidence is still needed on top of this.

"The sudden appearance, fully formed, of all the complex invertebrates (snails, clams, jellyfish, sponges, worms, sea urchins, brachiopods, trilobites, etc.) without a trace of ancestors, and the sudden appearance, fully formed, of every major kind of fish (supposedly the first vertebrates) without a trace of ancestors, proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has not occurred.

There is no source given for this information in the first place, so it could be dismissed out of hand. But it is also blatantly false. The Cambrian explosion, which is what it refers to as a 'sudden appearance' took approximately 70-80 million years. And there are many candidates for precursors to the invertabreas you speak of. Arthur N. Strahler's book Science and Earth History--The Evolution/Creation Controversy contained an entire section on possible precursors to Cambrian animals.

Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless.

Agreed, because it fulfills its purpose regardless of what creationists say.

Furthermore, there are three other basically different types of flying creatures"flying insects, flying reptiles (now extinct), and flying mammals (bats). It would be strange, indeed, even incomprehensible, that millions of years of evolution of these three basically different types of flying creatures, each involving the remarkable transition of a land animal into a flying animal, would have failed to produce large numbers of transitional forms. If all of that evolution has occurred, our museums should contain scores, if not hundreds or thousands, of fossils of intermediate forms in each case. However, not a trace of an ancestor or transitional form has ever been found for any of these creatures!"
http://www.icr.org...

This relies on a misunderstanding of how fossils work, we are in fact lucky to have what we do. It is often said by palaeontologists that the chance of fossilization are one in a million. This is in fact true in some cases. But in many the odds are even worse then that. With erosion, and bone eating bacteria, and various other factors, it is a surprise we have as many fossils as we do.

Genetic evidence.:
Elaborate.

I did, right bellow this.

DNA sequencing shows that organisms that are phylogenetically closer have more similar genetics.:
How does this prove darwinism?

Is Darwinism a thing? Maybe Darwinian evolution. But that's not what I am really talking about. That theory is a bit defunct, and out of times. It has been adjusted so as to conform to reality. For instance, the addition of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. But I digress.

Essentially, what this means, is that we have created phylogenetic trees, which infer evolutionary relationship through similarities in physiological/genetic traits. The DNA sequencing shows that the phylogenetically trees are correct. It's like how we show that people are related. Imagine it this way, if we created a method that could generate ancestral trees based on physical similarities, and then we did DNA sequencing to show that these trees are also genetically accurate, then this would be evidence for the viability of this method. Evolution is that method.


Geological column. We see certain types of fossils where we would expect them, and they aren't where we wouldn't expect them. For instance, no bunnies in the Cambrian, but plenty of transitions from water to land.:
"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured. ... 'The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation." American paleontologist Steven M. Stanley

I agree with the quote from Steven Stanley. That's why Darwinian evolution is outdated. Currently, the theory of punctuated equilibrium is most accepted. What you don't mention there, is that Steven Stanley is an evolutionary biologist who is best know for the documented empirical research on the fossil record, and the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium. Nice quote mining though.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 11:14:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Forgot to mention. This belongs more in the science section, not the religion.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 11:43:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 10:28:39 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Unless of course you dispute the manners by which we date fossils and geological deposits.. Right?:
Absolutely.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 11:54:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 11:43:33 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 10:28:39 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Unless of course you dispute the manners by which we date fossils and geological deposits.. Right?:
Absolutely.

You dispute them? On what grounds?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:08:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 10:41:51 AM, muzebreak wrote:

See, this is the problem when creationists look at transitional fossils. They say "oh, we'll you can't prove that this is related to that". The issue isn't proving that the fossil is truly a transitional fossil. It is showing that a viable candidate exists, therefore closing a possible hole in the theory.:
Hence you still haven't shown the viable candidate.
If I show you a line up of fossils, and they show a gradual change from one species to another, then sure the chance exists that they are completely unrelated and they just happen to show this gradual change when in reality it didn't happen like that. But that isn't the point, the point is to show that viable fossils exist, that could be transitional fossils.:
If evolution is true, then they are.:
Not necessarily.
That is why more evidence is still needed on top of this.

There is no source given for this information in the first place, so it could be dismissed out of hand.:
Source was given in OP.
But it is also blatantly false. The Cambrian explosion, which is what it refers to as a 'sudden appearance' took approximately 70-80 million years. And there are many candidates for precursors to the invertabreas you speak of. Arthur N. Strahler's book Science and Earth History--The Evolution/Creation Controversy contained an entire section on possible precursors to Cambrian animals.:
Name them.


Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless.

Agreed, because it fulfills its purpose regardless of what creationists say.:
How has it if it is inadequate from reptile to birds?

This relies on a misunderstanding of how fossils work,:
How so?
we are in fact lucky to have what we do. It is often said by palaeontologists that the chance of fossilization are one in a million. This is in fact true in some cases. But in many the odds are even worse then that. With erosion, and bone eating bacteria, and various other factors, it is a surprise we have as many fossils as we do.:
How do fossils become fossils? What about the many fossils outside of their supposed strata? What the fact that reptiles do in fact sink faster, leaving them to no doubt drop further in the strata and mammals who float longer are at the top?

DNA sequencing shows that organisms that are phylogenetically closer have more similar genetics.:
How does this prove darwinism?

Essentially, what this means, is that we have created phylogenetic trees, which infer evolutionary relationship through similarities in physiological/genetic traits.:
Right on.
The DNA sequencing shows that the phylogenetically trees are correct. It's like how we show that people are related. Imagine it this way, if we created a method that could generate ancestral trees based on physical similarities, and then we did DNA sequencing to show that these trees are also genetically accurate, then this would be evidence for the viability of this method. Evolution is that method.:
This simply shows we have similar make ups.


I agree with the quote from Steven Stanley. That's why Darwinian evolution is outdated. Currently, the theory of punctuated equilibrium is most accepted. What you don't mention there, is that Steven Stanley is an evolutionary biologist who is best know for the documented empirical research on the fossil record, and the evolutionary process of . Nice quote mining though.:
So you stand by the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:12:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 11:54:36 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/20/2013 11:43:33 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 10:28:39 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Unless of course you dispute the manners by which we date fossils and geological deposits.. Right?:
Absolutely.

You dispute them? On what grounds?:

Simple...you have no way of knowing. You have no way of knowing if our current climate on earth and outside of it has remained the same. Dating methods relies on such things. They rely on our current tracking of aging by what we see but they have no idea of knowing if it was that way how ever long ago they claim. You have no idea of all the events this world has endured and the aging and processes from those events.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:17:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:12:07 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 11:54:36 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/20/2013 11:43:33 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 10:28:39 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:

Unless of course you dispute the manners by which we date fossils and geological deposits.. Right?:
Absolutely.

You dispute them? On what grounds?:

Simple...you have no way of knowing. You have no way of knowing if our current climate on earth and outside of it has remained the same. Dating methods relies on such things. They rely on our current tracking of aging by what we see but they have no idea of knowing if it was that way how ever long ago they claim. You have no idea of all the events this world has endured and the aging and processes from those events.

Yes we do.........

For instance, the atmosphere could never have been made of pudding.

We can't know everything, but we can know something's. but unless you can give me a specific example of something that, if true would disprove all dating methods, and is possible, then your point is moot.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:33:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:17:29 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Simple...you have no way of knowing. You have no way of knowing if our current climate on earth and outside of it has remained the same. Dating methods relies on such things. They rely on our current tracking of aging by what we see but they have no idea of knowing if it was that way how ever long ago they claim. You have no idea of all the events this world has endured and the aging and processes from those events.

Yes we do.........

For instance, the atmosphere could never have been made of pudding.:
How do you know that? 50 thousand years ago it could have been, show me I am wrong.

We can't know everything, but we can know something's. but unless you can give me a specific example of something that, if true would disprove all dating methods, and is possible, then your point is moot.:
I do not have to disprove dating methods, I only have to show they can be inadequite. Can you show that our world and atmosphere are the same from millions of years ago, or atleast the time scale you are giving?
The moon moves way from the earth at a rate that if we were billions of years old then the moon would have been inside the earth. We have radioactive dust from our solar system that arrives on earth. If this dust had been falling on earth for billions or even millions of years then were is it all? Samething with the moon or any other planet.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 12:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:08:39 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 10:41:51 AM, muzebreak wrote:

See, this is the problem when creationists look at transitional fossils. They say "oh, we'll you can't prove that this is related to that". The issue isn't proving that the fossil is truly a transitional fossil. It is showing that a viable candidate exists, therefore closing a possible hole in the theory.:
Hence you still haven't shown the viable candidate.
If I show you a line up of fossils, and they show a gradual change from one species to another, then sure the chance exists that they are completely unrelated and they just happen to show this gradual change when in reality it didn't happen like that. But that isn't the point, the point is to show that viable fossils exist, that could be transitional fossils.:
If evolution is true, then they are.:
Not necessarily.

Agreed.

That is why more evidence is still needed on top of this.

There is no source given for this information in the first place, so it could be dismissed out of hand.:
Source was given in OP.
But it is also blatantly false. The Cambrian explosion, which is what it refers to as a 'sudden appearance' took approximately 70-80 million years. And there are many candidates for precursors to the invertabreas you speak of. Arthur N. Strahler's book Science and Earth History--The Evolution/Creation Controversy contained an entire section on possible precursors to Cambrian animals.:
Name them.

Go buy the book.



Quarrels about disputable cases such as Archaeopteryx are really pointless.

Agreed, because it fulfills its purpose regardless of what creationists say.:
How has it if it is inadequate from reptile to birds?

How is it inadequate?


This relies on a misunderstanding of how fossils work,:
How so?

Can you please stop asking a question that is already answered directly below where you ask it.

we are in fact lucky to have what we do. It is often said by palaeontologists that the chance of fossilization are one in a million. This is in fact true in some cases. But in many the odds are even worse then that. With erosion, and bone eating bacteria, and various other factors, it is a surprise we have as many fossils as we do.:
How do fossils become fossils? What about the many fossils outside of their supposed strata? What the fact that reptiles do in fact sink faster, leaving them to no doubt drop further in the strata and mammals who float longer are at the top?

You want me to explain how fossils are created? There is this neat thing called google. And do you have any sources for the criticisms?


DNA sequencing shows that organisms that are phylogenetically closer have more similar genetics.:
How does this prove darwinism?

Please, please, stop asking questions that are already answered directly below.


Essentially, what this means, is that we have created phylogenetic trees, which infer evolutionary relationship through similarities in physiological/genetic traits.:
Right on.
The DNA sequencing shows that the phylogenetically trees are correct. It's like how we show that people are related. Imagine it this way, if we created a method that could generate ancestral trees based on physical similarities, and then we did DNA sequencing to show that these trees are also genetically accurate, then this would be evidence for the viability of this method. Evolution is that method.:
This simply shows we have similar make ups.

Yes, thats the point. We predicted, using the evolutionary paradigm, that these creatures, would be similar in this way. And they were.



I agree with the quote from Steven Stanley. That's why Darwinian evolution is outdated. Currently, the theory of punctuated equilibrium is most accepted. What you don't mention there, is that Steven Stanley is an evolutionary biologist who is best know for the documented empirical research on the fossil record, and the evolutionary process of . Nice quote mining though.:
So you stand by the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis?

Sorry, I said theory, when its only a hypothesis. I believe it is currently the best way of accounting for the facts we are looking at. But this is my opinion, and others differ. I am not an authority on the matter.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:05:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:48:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Go buy the book.:
Never crossed my mind.

Agreed, because it fulfills its purpose regardless of what creationists say.:
How has it if it is inadequate from reptile to birds?

How is it inadequate?:
http://www.nature.com...


This relies on a misunderstanding of how fossils work,:
How so?

Can you please stop asking a question that is already answered directly below where you ask it.:
You never answered how this is a misunderstanding of fossils.

How do fossils become fossils? What about the many fossils outside of their supposed strata? What the fact that reptiles do in fact sink faster, leaving them to no doubt drop further in the strata and mammals who float longer are at the top?

You want me to explain how fossils are created?:
I know how they are but do you know?
There is this neat thing called google. And do you have any sources for the criticisms?:
They are mine off the top my head. There are fossils outside thier supposed strata, do you refuse this claim? Do you refuse that if the world is flooded that retiles sink faster and deeper than mammels?


DNA sequencing shows that organisms that are phylogenetically closer have more similar genetics.:
How does this prove darwinism?

Please, please, stop asking questions that are already answered directly below.:
So basically you have no proof of, just alot of sercustainial evidence that a theory was created from?

The DNA sequencing shows that the phylogenetically trees are correct. It's like how we show that people are related. Imagine it this way, if we created a method that could generate ancestral trees based on physical similarities, and then we did DNA sequencing to show that these trees are also genetically accurate, then this would be evidence for the viability of this method. Evolution is that method.:
This simply shows we have similar make ups.

Yes, thats the point. We predicted, using the evolutionary paradigm, that these creatures, would be similar in this way. And they were.:
Is that really that big of a claim? Can't you see this in nature anyway? This is no different than saying that every single thing that lives are similar in some way and some more than others. Anyone with sense can claim this.

So you stand by the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:18:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 12:33:13 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 12:17:29 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Simple...you have no way of knowing. You have no way of knowing if our current climate on earth and outside of it has remained the same. Dating methods relies on such things. They rely on our current tracking of aging by what we see but they have no idea of knowing if it was that way how ever long ago they claim. You have no idea of all the events this world has endured and the aging and processes from those events.

Yes we do.........

For instance, the atmosphere could never have been made of pudding.:
How do you know that? 50 thousand years ago it could have been, show me I am wrong.

We can't know everything, but we can know something's. but unless you can give me a specific example of something that, if true would disprove all dating methods, and is possible, then your point is moot.:
I do not have to disprove dating methods, I only have to show they can be inadequite. Can you show that our world and atmosphere are the same from millions of years ago, or atleast the time scale you are giving?
The moon moves way from the earth at a rate that if we were billions of years old then the moon would have been inside the earth. We have radioactive dust from our solar system that arrives on earth. If this dust had been falling on earth for billions or even millions of years then were is it all? Samething with the moon or any other planet.

Are you an idiot? Because you just asserted the atmosphere could have been made of pudding. Then you fired out two arguments, neither of which you have any understanding. So you must be an idiot.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:24:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:18:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Are you an idiot? Because you just asserted the atmosphere could have been made of pudding. Then you fired out two arguments, neither of which you have any understanding. So you must be an idiot.:

Who's the idiot? You call me a idiot when you can't dispose of the claim, now thats a idiot. You also gained no brownie points for insulting instead of putting forth a answer to the arguments at hand.

Moon distance and space dust. Go....
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:37:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:05:02 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 12:48:07 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Go buy the book.:
Never crossed my mind.

Well then, now it has.


Agreed, because it fulfills its purpose regardless of what creationists say.:
How has it if it is inadequate from reptile to birds?

How is it inadequate?:
http://www.nature.com...

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I was not previously aware of this discovery. Ill have to look into it more.



This relies on a misunderstanding of how fossils work,:
How so?

Can you please stop asking a question that is already answered directly below where you ask it.:
You never answered how this is a misunderstanding of fossils.

Yes, I quite clearly did. As I said, fossilization happens very rarely, so to make the claim they did they have to misunderstand how fossilization works.


How do fossils become fossils? What about the many fossils outside of their supposed strata? What the fact that reptiles do in fact sink faster, leaving them to no doubt drop further in the strata and mammals who float longer are at the top?

You want me to explain how fossils are created?:
I know how they are but do you know?

Yes I do. And even if I didn't, again there is this thing called google, it works like magic.

There is this neat thing called google. And do you have any sources for the criticisms?:
They are mine off the top my head. There are fossils outside thier supposed strata, do you refuse this claim? Do you refuse that if the world is flooded that retiles sink faster and deeper than mammels?

I don't refuse it, I disagree that it is correct. I have never tested whether a reptile might sink faster then a mammal, but I see no reason to believe it might. Or why the rate at which they might sink even matters.



DNA sequencing shows that organisms that are phylogenetically closer have more similar genetics.:
How does this prove darwinism?

Please, please, stop asking questions that are already answered directly below.:
So basically you have no proof of, just alot of sercustainial evidence that a theory was created from?

I agree. I have no proof. Proof is not something science deals in. If you want proof, go to mathematics. And I have no clue what sercustainial evidence is.


The DNA sequencing shows that the phylogenetically trees are correct. It's like how we show that people are related. Imagine it this way, if we created a method that could generate ancestral trees based on physical similarities, and then we did DNA sequencing to show that these trees are also genetically accurate, then this would be evidence for the viability of this method. Evolution is that method.:
This simply shows we have similar make ups.

Yes, thats the point. We predicted, using the evolutionary paradigm, that these creatures, would be similar in this way. And they were.:
Is that really that big of a claim? Can't you see this in nature anyway? This is no different than saying that every single thing that lives are similar in some way and some more than others. Anyone with sense can claim this.

No, it is not the same. This shows more then just the physical similarities, it shows the genetic ones. It shows a progress of genetics. For instance, did you know that apes have 48 chromosomes, and we have 46? You probably did, most people do. What most people don't know is that chromosomes are tipped with telomeres. Telomeres are to chromosomes as aglytes are to choose laces, they keep them from deteriorating apart. Telomeres sit on the ends of each chromosome. One of the interesting things about our chromosomes is that one of our chromosomes is very unique. If you take chromosomes 2p and 2q in apes, and combine them, it looks identical to our second chromosome. It even has a telomere in the middle. So, there are two options as far as I see it. Either we evolved from a common ancestor, and we had two chromosomes combine but apes didn't, or your god is deceiving us on purpose. Have you got a different explanation?

So you stand by the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:39:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:24:05 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:18:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Are you an idiot? Because you just asserted the atmosphere could have been made of pudding. Then you fired out two arguments, neither of which you have any understanding. So you must be an idiot.:

Who's the idiot? You call me a idiot when you can't dispose of the claim, now thats a idiot. You also gained no brownie points for insulting instead of putting forth a answer to the arguments at hand.

Moon distance and space dust. Go....

Ok, first, tell me what your calculations are. I need your calculations so I can disprove them. And I still contend that only an idiot will assert it is possible for an atmosphere to be made of pudding.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:58:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:39:56 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:24:05 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:18:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Are you an idiot? Because you just asserted the atmosphere could have been made of pudding. Then you fired out two arguments, neither of which you have any understanding. So you must be an idiot.:

Who's the idiot? You call me a idiot when you can't dispose of the claim, now thats a idiot. You also gained no brownie points for insulting instead of putting forth a answer to the arguments at hand.

Moon distance and space dust. Go....

Ok, first, tell me what your calculations are. I need your calculations so I can disprove them. The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. The earth and moon gets thousands to millions of tons of dust per year from outer space.
And I still contend that only an idiot will assert it is possible for an atmosphere to be made of pudding.:

Though you can not say that is wasn't. My point. The exact tool darwinist have used for years.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 1:59:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:58:21 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:39:56 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:24:05 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:18:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Are you an idiot? Because you just asserted the atmosphere could have been made of pudding. Then you fired out two arguments, neither of which you have any understanding. So you must be an idiot.:

Who's the idiot? You call me a idiot when you can't dispose of the claim, now thats a idiot. You also gained no brownie points for insulting instead of putting forth a answer to the arguments at hand.

Moon distance and space dust. Go....

Ok, first, tell me what your calculations are. I need your calculations so I can disprove them.
The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. The earth and moon gets thousands to millions of tons of dust per year from outer space.
And I still contend that only an idiot will assert it is possible for an atmosphere to be made of pudding.:

Though you can not say that is wasn't. My point. The exact tool darwinist have used for years.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 2:06:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 1:59:09 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:58:21 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:39:56 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:24:05 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 1:18:51 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Are you an idiot? Because you just asserted the atmosphere could have been made of pudding. Then you fired out two arguments, neither of which you have any understanding. So you must be an idiot.:

Who's the idiot? You call me a idiot when you can't dispose of the claim, now thats a idiot. You also gained no brownie points for insulting instead of putting forth a answer to the arguments at hand.

Moon distance and space dust. Go....

Ok, first, tell me what your calculations are. I need your calculations so I can disprove them.
The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. The earth and moon gets thousands to millions of tons of dust per year from outer space.

What is your source for these numbers?

And I still contend that only an idiot will assert it is possible for an atmosphere to be made of pudding.:

Though you can not say that is wasn't. My point. The exact tool darwinist have used for years.

It wasn't. Look I just said it.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 2:23:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 8:52:52 AM, Pennington wrote:
What affirmed evidence is there for it to be fact?

Ask them to show you an example of how an organism gets around the dna code barrier, so that a dog can produce a non-dog, or a cow produce a non-cow.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 2:25:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, you think that because a majority of living organisms have similar ways to preform functions necessary for living, that one came from the other?

Mhm.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 2:31:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 2:23:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/20/2013 8:52:52 AM, Pennington wrote:
What affirmed evidence is there for it to be fact?

Ask them to show you an example of how an organism gets around the dna code barrier, so that a dog can produce a non-dog, or a cow produce a non-cow.

That's an easy one: No such barrier exists.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 2:34:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 2:06:14 PM, muzebreak wrote:

The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. The earth and moon gets thousands to millions of tons of dust per year from outer space.

What is your source for these numbers?:
Was a estimate. But you should know that dust falls on the earth and the moon.

And I still contend that only an idiot will assert it is possible for an atmosphere to be made of pudding.:

Though you can not say that is wasn't. My point. The exact tool darwinist have used for years.

It wasn't. Look I just said it.:
Saying it and showing it is different some how.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 2:57:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 2:34:10 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 2:06:14 PM, muzebreak wrote:

The Moon's orbit (its circular path around the Earth) is indeed getting larger, at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. The earth and moon gets thousands to millions of tons of dust per year from outer space.

What is your source for these numbers?:
Was a estimate. But you should know that dust falls on the earth and the moon.

Ok, if you get to estimate numbers then I do to. I estimate that the moon actual moves away from the earth at approximately 2.16cm per year for the last 650 million years. And before that it was approximately 1.95cm +- O.29cm per year.

And I estimate the rate of of interplanetary 'dust' falling to earth is 11,000-18,000 tons a year.

Oh wait, I didn't estimate those, I got them from decent scientific sources that use empirical evidence and deduction to show the truth of their claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.infidels.org...


And I still contend that only an idiot will assert it is possible for an atmosphere to be made of pudding.:

Though you can not say that is wasn't. My point. The exact tool darwinist have used for years.

It wasn't. Look I just said it.:
Saying it and showing it is different some how.

You said I can't say it, so I did. If you wanted me to show it you should have said. Ok, here's what I want you to do. I want you to take some pudding, and fling it in the air.

Did you do it?

Did you see how the pudding dropped to the groud rather then floating like an atmosphere does?

Do you understand the idiocy of the possibility of a pudding atmosphere yet?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 3:04:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 2:57:09 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Ok, if you get to estimate numbers then I do to. I estimate that the moon actual moves away from the earth at approximately 2.16cm per year for the last 650 million years. And before that it was approximately 1.95cm +- O.29cm per year.

And I estimate the rate of of interplanetary 'dust' falling to earth is 11,000-18,000 tons a year.

Oh wait, I didn't estimate those, I got them from decent scientific sources that use empirical evidence and deduction to show the truth of their claims.:
Tell yourself that. Btw you lied you said you esitmated.


http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.infidels.org...:
Not biased or nothing.


And I still contend that only an idiot will assert it is possible for an atmosphere to be made of pudding.:

Though you can not say that is wasn't. My point. The exact tool darwinist have used for years.

It wasn't. Look I just said it.:
Saying it and showing it is different some how.

You said I can't say it, so I did. If you wanted me to show it you should have said. Ok, here's what I want you to do. I want you to take some pudding, and fling it in the air.


Did you do it?


Did you see how the pudding dropped to the groud rather then floating like an atmosphere does?

Do you understand the idiocy of the possibility of a pudding atmosphere yet?:

Hey is it the same pudding that was around millions of years ago? If not then how can we know if that pudding floated or not?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 3:46:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 3:04:32 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/20/2013 2:57:09 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Ok, if you get to estimate numbers then I do to. I estimate that the moon actual moves away from the earth at approximately 2.16cm per year for the last 650 million years. And before that it was approximately 1.95cm +- O.29cm per year.

And I estimate the rate of of interplanetary 'dust' falling to earth is 11,000-18,000 tons a year.

Oh wait, I didn't estimate those, I got them from decent scientific sources that use empirical evidence and deduction to show the truth of their claims.:
Tell yourself that. Btw you lied you said you esitmated.

Yes, I lied. Your point?



http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.infidels.org...:
Not biased or nothing.

Oh, they are most certainly biased. Their goal is to disprove creationist claims. But if you wish to challenge the information, then challenge it, don't challenge the source. Show me something wrong with their numbers. Show me something wrong with their physics. Go ahead. Do it. I dare you.



And I still contend that only an idiot will assert it is possible for an atmosphere to be made of pudding.:

Though you can not say that is wasn't. My point. The exact tool darwinist have used for years.

It wasn't. Look I just said it.:
Saying it and showing it is different some how.

You said I can't say it, so I did. If you wanted me to show it you should have said. Ok, here's what I want you to do. I want you to take some pudding, and fling it in the air.


Did you do it?


Did you see how the pudding dropped to the groud rather then floating like an atmosphere does?

Do you understand the idiocy of the possibility of a pudding atmosphere yet?:

Hey is it the same pudding that was around millions of years ago? If not then how can we know if that pudding floated or not?

Well, lets see. Pudding now is a gelatine based substance. Pudding in the past was........... still a gelatine based substance. Pudding doesn't change because its in the past, stop grasping at straws. Either give me an example of an earth bio system that will affect all dating systems making them innacurate, or shut up.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.