Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Where are the Transitional FOssils?

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2012 1:34:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 12:53:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/26/2012 1:34:35 PM, Microsuck wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org...
In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use."

Evolutionary thinking is key to life history theory? It is only thought to be the most practical method because of knowledge limitations.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

But all these thoughts require absence of a here-after and meta-physical and spiritual beings.
Which can not be disproved but catergorized and labeled as a mental disorder. When you can come up with a exsplenation for everything you are to ignorant to see the truth.
TheAsylum
WriterDave
Posts: 934
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 2:15:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Science is perfectly capable of testing for supernatural entities -- so long as those entities operate according to regularities such that the tests that are conducted that yield positive results for such entities can be duplicated by anyone else.

So are you saying that God is chaotic?
Writer. Liberal atheist. Official "Official of the FREEDO Bureaucracy" of the FREEDO Bureaucracy.

Edit To Civilize, with FAQs: http://bit.ly...
Insult Ownership: http://bit.ly...
Haters: http://bit.ly...

"I said you are a fake, a phony, and a fraud, but that doesn't mean I think you're putting on an act." --Innomen
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 7:02:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 2:15:38 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Science is perfectly capable of testing for supernatural entities -- so long as those entities operate according to regularities such that the tests that are conducted that yield positive results for such entities can be duplicated by anyone else.

So are you saying that God is chaotic?

You answer and submit to God. It is not and never will be the other way around. That is your arrogance talking.
TheAsylum
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2012 7:11:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 7:02:33 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/27/2012 2:15:38 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Science is perfectly capable of testing for supernatural entities -- so long as those entities operate according to regularities such that the tests that are conducted that yield positive results for such entities can be duplicated by anyone else.

So are you saying that God is chaotic?

You answer and submit to God. It is not and never will be the other way around. That is your arrogance talking.

You never even refuted anything in the video. You just posted a bunch of nonsense -- and that is what Christianity is -- NONSENSE!
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:25:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This video makes it sound like there are numerous transitional fossils to be found. In reality, there are not a lot of transitional fossils. And, it's even more rare to see two of the same kind of transition. Findng something that looks sorta like a frog and a salamander does not explain a lot unless you find this fossil repeatedly. What if it was an abnormal example of a current species? What if it was cross species mating?

There are a lot of things wrong with the extremely limited evidence for transitions. Mostly, as I said, there aren't enough examples.

Also "predictive power" is absolutely misused here simply becuse of the vague requirements for a prediction of this kind. Out of the many total fossil found, it only takes one sorta-frog-sorta-salamander to satisfy a prediction, which is just not the right way to go about things.

Making a prediction means testing the theory in a lab and seeing if the results are as predicted.

Don't be misled by false confidence.

The Theory of Evolution falls miserably short of a theory except for the statement "things change."
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:27:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You never even refuted anything in the video. You just posted a bunch of nonsense -- and that is what Christianity is -- NONSENSE!

Two entities in an epic battle for dominance: The blind faith dogma of science, and the observed testimony of billions with God.

*holds up his flag* CHAAAAARGE!
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 12:29:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:27:14 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
You never even refuted anything in the video. You just posted a bunch of nonsense -- and that is what Christianity is -- NONSENSE!

Two entities in an epic battle for dominance: The blind faith dogma of science, and the observed testimony of billions with God.

*holds up his flag* CHAAAAARGE!

Uh, I can't tell if you are trolling or are serious. Why don't we debate it? Resolved: The Theory of Evolution is True.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 12:32:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 12:29:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:27:14 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
You never even refuted anything in the video. You just posted a bunch of nonsense -- and that is what Christianity is -- NONSENSE!

Two entities in an epic battle for dominance: The blind faith dogma of science, and the observed testimony of billions with God.

*holds up his flag* CHAAAAARGE!


Uh, I can't tell if you are trolling or are serious. Why don't we debate it? Resolved: The Theory of Evolution is True.

Better to discuss than debate things IMO. What I'm saying is that calling one thing nonsense is ridiculous when the thinking from the other side is just as bad most of the time. The Theory of Evolution is one of those examples of something that has turned into a religion rather than true science as it's supposed to be done.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 1:19:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 12:32:21 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 12:29:21 PM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:27:14 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
You never even refuted anything in the video. You just posted a bunch of nonsense -- and that is what Christianity is -- NONSENSE!

Two entities in an epic battle for dominance: The blind faith dogma of science, and the observed testimony of billions with God.

*holds up his flag* CHAAAAARGE!


Uh, I can't tell if you are trolling or are serious. Why don't we debate it? Resolved: The Theory of Evolution is True.

Better to discuss than debate things IMO. What I'm saying is that calling one thing nonsense is ridiculous when the thinking from the other side is just as bad most of the time. The Theory of Evolution is one of those examples of something that has turned into a religion rather than true science as it's supposed to be done.

Apparently, you missed the point of the video.

Do you know what the theory states? Better yet, do you know what a theory even is?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 2:03:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Apparently, you missed the point of the video.

Do you know what the theory states? Better yet, do you know what a theory even is?

No, I didn't miss the point of the video.

A theory is supposedly a tested and peer reviewed hypothesis. I say "supposedly" because some theories skip the Scientific Method entirely. Evolutionary theory is one of those.

Predicting what fossils would be found is NOT what is meant bymaking future predictions. There are many reasons why fossils could be found to have the features that scientists thought would be found. One of those just happens to be that those are dead species without any species based ancestry.

Because we've never seen any large scale changes as described in evolution with careful documentation of the original mean state of a species, and recorded its growth using the continuation of the mean as the control for the experiment. Because we cannot test almost all aspects of this theory, and because we can't use it to make predictions. Evolution is not science. The Theory of Evolution is a logically sound hypothesis. Nothing more.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 1:50:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:25:06 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
This video makes it sound like there are numerous transitional fossils to be found. In reality, there are not a lot of transitional fossils. And, it's even more rare to see two of the same kind of transition. Findng something that looks sorta like a frog and a salamander does not explain a lot unless you find this fossil repeatedly. What if it was an abnormal example of a current species? What if it was cross species mating?

Actually, every fossil is a transitional fossil. But im fine with ignoring that for the moment, and concentrating on the fossils that show clear characteristics of two separate species.

First off, salamanders and frogs cant mate, just like birds and reptiles cant mate and produce an archeopteryx. lions and housecats are far more morphologically similar than some of the transitional fossils, yet not even they mate. Pre/postzygotic barriers exist that prevent species that are too different, from mating. This means that transitional fossils that are the result of mating, is extremely rare.

Secondly, fossilization is a rare event. Im lazy, so ill copy and paste what is written in talk origins.

-Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.
-Many types of animals are fragile and do not preserve well.
-Many species have small ranges. Their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small.
-The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon.

Thirdly, finding fossils is rare. What percent of the earths surface have we dug up? Probably less than .0000000001%.

Fourthly, fossils being preserved is rare. Continents are constantly shifting, erosion occurring, etc.

Now, consider the four points above. Each point makes finding a fossil, rare. Within the specific definition that you are thinking of, sure, we have only found a couple dozen fossils that fit your definition of a transitional fossil.

So what. Its rare. Weve already found more than enough to confirm common ancestry.

There are a lot of things wrong with the extremely limited evidence for transitions. Mostly, as I said, there aren't enough examples.

Well, no, thats not something that is wrong. Its expected from our knowledge of fossilization.

Also "predictive power" is absolutely misused here simply becuse of the vague requirements for a prediction of this kind. Out of the many total fossil found, it only takes one sorta-frog-sorta-salamander to satisfy a prediction, which is just not the right way to go about things.

Well, no, morphology tells us that there must be a specific bridge between these two species or else it would mean that each species just happened to develop greatly similar structures on different paths.

Making a prediction means testing the theory in a lab and seeing if the results are as predicted.

No, thats not at all what prediction is. Prediction is simply deducing an outcome beforehand and discovering whether that deduction came true or not. You dont have to test it in a lab for it to be a prediction.

However, in a way, yes, we did take the fossils to the lab and saw if the results of the find were as predicted.

Don't be misled by false confidence.

Dont mistake confidence with evidence.

The Theory of Evolution falls miserably short of a theory except for the statement "things change."

No, we have demonstrated that common ancestry is true.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:00:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 2:03:12 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Apparently, you missed the point of the video.

Do you know what the theory states? Better yet, do you know what a theory even is?

No, I didn't miss the point of the video.

A theory is supposedly a tested and peer reviewed hypothesis. I say "supposedly" because some theories skip the Scientific Method entirely. Evolutionary theory is one of those.

Which step in the scientific method does Evolution skip?

Predicting what fossils would be found is NOT what is meant bymaking future predictions. There are many reasons why fossils could be found to have the features that scientists thought would be found. One of those just happens to be that those are dead species without any species based ancestry.

Okay, so what is one reason that we have found specific transitional fossils?

Because we've never seen any large scale changes as described in evolution with careful documentation of the original mean state of a species, and recorded its growth using the continuation of the mean as the control for the experiment.

You dont.

Just like, Pluto has an orbit of 250 years. How does science know that Pluto has completed a full orbit, when weve only known about its existance for 100 years or so?

You dont need to be there, observing it for 250 years in order to conclude that, yes, Pluto has existed for more than 250 years in our solar system. We have never been to Vega, yet scientists accept the fact that gravity must exist on Vega as well, since it exists on this planet and every other planet in the solar system. There is nothing wrong in science to extend a theory to its logical conclusion. The only time we do not, is when we are presented with evidence to the contrary.

Our conclusions regarding Large scale evolution is an extension of our current observations to its logical conclusion.

Because we cannot test almost all aspects of this theory, and because we can't use it to make predictions.

You do not need to "test' all aspects of any theory. We accept, for example, that the sun is fueled by fusion energy. We cant directly go and test this, yet we accept it.

Also, what aspect of evolution cannot be used in making predictions?

Evolution is not science. The Theory of Evolution is a logically sound hypothesis. Nothing more.

We consider the fact that gravity exists on all other planets outside our solar system, as science. Evolution is no different.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:01:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 1:56:47 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
There are things to hold in higher reguard in life than science.

If you care about truth, nothing within the history of mankind has separated truth from fiction, than science.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:06:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 2:01:23 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 1:56:47 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
There are things to hold in higher reguard in life than science.

If you care about truth, nothing within the history of mankind has separated truth from fiction, than science.

That is your opinion. And most cases it is true from a physical standpoint. I will say again there are things in this life that are important than anything science can provide.
TheAsylum
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:08:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 2:06:45 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:01:23 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 1:56:47 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
There are things to hold in higher reguard in life than science.

If you care about truth, nothing within the history of mankind has separated truth from fiction, than science.

That is your opinion. And most cases it is true from a physical standpoint. I will say again there are things in this life that are important than anything science can provide.

No, its a fact. History is fact, and science is the single most predominant method of finding truth from fiction.
Thaumaturgy
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:14:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 2:03:12 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
No, I didn't miss the point of the video.

A theory is supposedly a tested and peer reviewed hypothesis. I say "supposedly" because some theories skip the Scientific Method entirely. Evolutionary theory is one of those.

Interesting conjecture. So if I may, as a scientist myself, try my hand at figuring out what the problem is.

1. The Scientific Method is NOT a "cookbook", it is at best a rubrik for understanding a larger philosophical process.

2. The scientific method roughly stated starts with OBSERVATION. Note that Darwin started with observation, but that wasn't where it all began. Prior to Darwin we had Vesalius in the 16th century starting off "comparative anatomy", then Steno helped give birth to paleontology and an appreciation of life in the past, then Linnaeus in the 18th century with his nested hierarchies, along the way the history of the earth was being fleshed out by Lyell and others giving us the time frame for all this information to be slotted into. Darwin comes along to crystallize the information in:

3. HYPOTHESIS. NOw along with Darwin's hypothesis an unrelated bit of data was formulating in the form of Mendel's genetics which would ultimately give rise to a mechanism in which to provide the necessary input mutations which will be filtered by natural selection.

4. TESTING of HYPOTHESIS: This is what we've been doing for the last 150 years. We have looked to see if there are "transitional fossils" which would be indicative of "change in life over time" (there are numerous examples). We have looked to see if vestigial structures exist in animals today that bear no useful purpose but relate to distant relatives in the past (such as the pelvic bones of whales)

4. MORE TESTING of HYPOTHESIS: With the advent of deeper understanding of genetics and biochemistry we've been able to track things like molecular vestiges, DNA coding redundancies (this can be confirmed by human-chimpanzee divergence and the prediction of cytochrome c gene differences should be less than 3% based on estimates of divergence, et viola, the difference is about 1.2% despite the fact that there are about 10^49 different sequences that could code for this protein.)

5. MORE TESTING... and more testing...and more testing.

One of the more simple examples I like from recent science is the fossil TIKTAALIK. Scientists predicted that in rocks of about middle Devonian age there should be fossils for a transition between land animals and fish. They looked to find places that Devonian aged rocks of the right type of paleoenvironment and ironically enough the most appropriate place to look was Ellesmere Island in the Canadian arctic. They dug there and found Tiktaalik. I can't think of a better example where evolutionary theory worked so elegantly. You can read about it here: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu...

Predicting what fossils would be found is NOT what is meant bymaking future predictions.

Why not? If the theory of evolution says life changed over time then predicting when and where evidence for a change should be found and then finding it is exactly what it should do.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:18:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 2:08:53 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:06:45 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:01:23 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 1:56:47 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
There are things to hold in higher reguard in life than science.

If you care about truth, nothing within the history of mankind has separated truth from fiction, than science.

That is your opinion. And most cases it is true from a physical standpoint. I will say again there are things in this life that are important than anything science can provide.

No, its a fact. History is fact, and science is the single most predominant method of finding truth from fiction.

History is not fact, it fantasy right. Thise people from acients times knew nothing, right? BTW science is not fact, it is theories that can never be proven or unproven.
TheAsylum
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 12:49:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 2:18:55 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:08:53 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:06:45 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:01:23 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 1:56:47 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
There are things to hold in higher reguard in life than science.

If you care about truth, nothing within the history of mankind has separated truth from fiction, than science.

That is your opinion. And most cases it is true from a physical standpoint. I will say again there are things in this life that are important than anything science can provide.

No, its a fact. History is fact, and science is the single most predominant method of finding truth from fiction.

History is not fact, it fantasy right. Thise people from acients times knew nothing, right? BTW science is not fact, it is theories that can never be proven or unproven.

Really. So George washington once existed in the past, isnt a fact? Okay.

Science is both fact and theories. The fact that you do not know this, shows of your ignorance about science.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 12:19:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 12:49:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:18:55 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:08:53 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:06:45 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:01:23 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 1:56:47 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
There are things to hold in higher reguard in life than science.

If you care about truth, nothing within the history of mankind has separated truth from fiction, than science.

That is your opinion. And most cases it is true from a physical standpoint. I will say again there are things in this life that are important than anything science can provide.

No, its a fact. History is fact, and science is the single most predominant method of finding truth from fiction.

History is not fact, it fantasy right. Thise people from acients times knew nothing, right? BTW science is not fact, it is theories that can never be proven or unproven.

Really. So George washington once existed in the past, isnt a fact? Okay.

Science is both fact and theories. The fact that you do not know this, shows of your ignorance about science.

Hey what you got to prove George Washington existed? Here say and books? Ok Christopher columbus? King Arthur? Ghandi? Ramses? Just here say and books written by men. Why is todays man somewhat more reliable and honest than the past? Im just a man that thinks the writings of the Bible and many acient and modern books should be viewed as examples to live by. We differ on the books.
TheAsylum
WeAreButler
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 1:03:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 12:49:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:18:55 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:08:53 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:06:45 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:01:23 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 1:56:47 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
There are things to hold in higher reguard in life than science.

If you care about truth, nothing within the history of mankind has separated truth from fiction, than science.

That is your opinion. And most cases it is true from a physical standpoint. I will say again there are things in this life that are important than anything science can provide.

No, its a fact. History is fact, and science is the single most predominant method of finding truth from fiction.

History is not fact, it fantasy right. Thise people from acients times knew nothing, right? BTW science is not fact, it is theories that can never be proven or unproven.

Really. So George washington once existed in the past, isnt a fact? Okay.

Science is both fact and theories. The fact that you do not know this, shows of your ignorance about science.

This is my first post, which is a statement, not a vulnerability.

Everything is a theory. Nothing is true. If you think there are ANY absolute truths you have been sorely mislead your entire life.
Everything is relative.

If you think Pluto is a planet -- sure that's dandy and true -- until it's not. And we now call it a dwarf planet.

So Christians (well rather EVERYONE) thought that the Sun went around the Earth. And this was completely TRUE. Until it wasn't...

And then the Biblical interpretations were changed. Nothing is true. Everything is just INTERPRETATIONS. I am not fighting Christianity -- as I am a Christian. But realize -- everything is faith. Science is faith. Science might be true, religion might be true -- but chances are there are some things wrong.
Does it matter?

Truth is relative. 2+2=5.
What is 2? What is 5?
2+2 might as well = 5 -- these are empty numbers without the values WE assign them.
They are definitions, which we provide the interpretation and make them true.

Science is good. It is finding the truth. However it is wrong, but that doesn't matter -- as it is right, until we prove otherwise. And that's the BEST we can do. And if we give our best, what else can we give?

**NOTE**
I did not watch the video, nor wish to do so. If someone would kindly outline what the video said, that would be much easier for me.

**NOTE 2**
On the transitional fossil nonsense on earlier posts.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.
This is common goal-post moving which many Christians use.

Between A and F we show them the transitional fossil D.
As between A and F, lies D.

However the Christian will then define D as a whole new species, and won't agree that isn't a transitional fossil.

We will then show that from A to D, there were transitional fossils B and C, yet they still will argue B and C are ALSO species, and there needs to be a A.5 between A and B.

Of course, I can't tell what is a transitional fossil, and perhaps B really is a species -- but isn't that what a transitional fossil is?
It's all just jumbled definitions.
Evolution is based upon the definition that life is continuum, that there is NO difference between Macro and Micro Evolution AS a species -- and an animal for that matter is just a set of variables.
We Are Butler
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 2:34:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 12:19:43 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 12:49:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:18:55 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:08:53 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:06:45 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:01:23 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 1:56:47 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
There are things to hold in higher reguard in life than science.

If you care about truth, nothing within the history of mankind has separated truth from fiction, than science.

That is your opinion. And most cases it is true from a physical standpoint. I will say again there are things in this life that are important than anything science can provide.

No, its a fact. History is fact, and science is the single most predominant method of finding truth from fiction.

History is not fact, it fantasy right. Thise people from acients times knew nothing, right? BTW science is not fact, it is theories that can never be proven or unproven.

Really. So George washington once existed in the past, isnt a fact? Okay.

Science is both fact and theories. The fact that you do not know this, shows of your ignorance about science.

Hey what you got to prove George Washington existed? Here say and books? Ok Christopher columbus? King Arthur? Ghandi? Ramses? Just here say and books written by men. Why is todays man somewhat more reliable and honest than the past? Im just a man that thinks the writings of the Bible and many acient and modern books should be viewed as examples to live by. We differ on the books.

So you think we should stone our unruly children? That we should kill homosexuals? Should we live by these examples in the bible?
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:04:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 2:34:50 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/30/2012 12:19:43 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 12:49:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:18:55 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:08:53 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:06:45 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/29/2012 2:01:23 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2012 1:56:47 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
There are things to hold in higher reguard in life than science.

If you care about truth, nothing within the history of mankind has separated truth from fiction, than science.

That is your opinion. And most cases it is true from a physical standpoint. I will say again there are things in this life that are important than anything science can provide.

No, its a fact. History is fact, and science is the single most predominant method of finding truth from fiction.

History is not fact, it fantasy right. Thise people from acients times knew nothing, right? BTW science is not fact, it is theories that can never be proven or unproven.

Really. So George washington once existed in the past, isnt a fact? Okay.

Science is both fact and theories. The fact that you do not know this, shows of your ignorance about science.

Hey what you got to prove George Washington existed? Here say and books? Ok Christopher columbus? King Arthur? Ghandi? Ramses? Just here say and books written by men. Why is todays man somewhat more reliable and honest than the past? Im just a man that thinks the writings of the Bible and many acient and modern books should be viewed as examples to live by. We differ on the books.

So you think we should stone our unruly children? That we should kill homosexuals? Should we live by these examples in the bible?

We are under the New Testament after Jesus. We live by the Law and commands he set. We are still under the ten commandments but not the old law. You must have missed that in the Bible.
TheAsylum
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:34:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 4:04:42 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
We are under the New Testament after Jesus. We live by the Law and commands he set. We are still under the ten commandments but not the old law. You must have missed that in the Bible.

If so that means that morality is relative, not absolute. If it were absolute, it couldn't change. Personally, I'll have none of that moral relativism.
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:55:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 9:34:29 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/31/2012 4:04:42 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
We are under the New Testament after Jesus. We live by the Law and commands he set. We are still under the ten commandments but not the old law. You must have missed that in the Bible.

If so that means that morality is relative, not absolute. If it were absolute, it couldn't change. Personally, I'll have none of that moral relativism.

Unless Old Testament laws were based on unchanging moral absolutes but are no longer necessary because culturally those laws don't apply. For example, we know how to cook pork in such a way that kills the parasites that live in pork. But that doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't eat food that's bad for you.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 4:00:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/27/2012 2:15:38 PM, WriterDave wrote:
Science is perfectly capable of testing for supernatural entities -- so long as those entities operate according to regularities such that the tests that are conducted that yield positive results for such entities can be duplicated by anyone else.

So are you saying that God is chaotic?

I reckon if Chaos as a concept is prevalent during any discussion about the nature of supernatural beings then God is the most chaotic creature ever contrived.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 7:10:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I find it funny that evolutionist say hey, you can prove God.
Then say evolution is real and documented, then say we can not show you or prove it. Take our word on it. The same tatic a religious person uses. Then they blame us for this tatic.

God: unseeable- could be
Evolution of all life unto other species- unseeable-difference we can see species not evolve.
TheAsylum
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 10:04:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/1/2012 7:10:07 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
I find it funny that evolutionist say hey, you can prove God.
Then say evolution is real and documented, then say we can not show you or prove it. Take our word on it. The same tatic a religious person uses. Then they blame us for this tatic.
Well, I thought this statement was shown false given the reasonably large evidence for evolution.

After all, a standard answer would show how studies in embyrology, anatomical structures, genetics, paleontology, and so forth would demonstrate common descent due to similarities.

God: unseeable- could be
Evolution of all life unto other species- unseeable-difference we can see species not evolve.

**at an individual level:)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 7:41:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 9:55:56 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/31/2012 9:34:29 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/31/2012 4:04:42 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
We are under the New Testament after Jesus. We live by the Law and commands he set. We are still under the ten commandments but not the old law. You must have missed that in the Bible.

If so that means that morality is relative, not absolute. If it were absolute, it couldn't change. Personally, I'll have none of that moral relativism.

Unless Old Testament laws were based on unchanging moral absolutes but are no longer necessary because culturally those laws don't apply.

Are you telling me that there is a culture that exists that could possibly be an excuse to allow soldiers to rape women from countries theyve conquered?

If so, then please explain this culture to me that would justify the rape of women.

For example, we know how to cook pork in such a way that kills the parasites that live in pork. But that doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't eat food that's bad for you.

Are you telling me that they lacked the ability to cook pork? Thats all it takes to kill the parasites, just like all you need to do is cook salmon to kill those parasites too.